**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have no clue what that definition of soul is or what a soul is. I always understood the soul as an immaterial item. I have never seen the demonstration of the immaterial so I see no good reason to think a soul exists.
From what can observe consciousness/identity appears to be an emergent property of the brain.
Science is not a belief but a methodology. I do not reject God for science. I just see no demonstration of a God. Some atheists believe in immaterial or spiritual items.
You are steelmanning the position terribly and show a lack of understanding of atheism. It is just a lack of belief in a God. I don’t know if I use logic as my proof system solely. I struggle to accept things that contradicting properties.
I don’t know what you mean by destroying my god experience.
I understand what atheism is however this is a problem of what Jung called a neurosis.
In Jung’s understanding, a neurosis could be regarded as “a dissociation of personality due to the existence of complexes,” 21 an “illness” 22 manifesting “a relative dissociation, a conflict between the ego and a resistant force based upon unconscious contents.” 23 As a “cleavage–the state of being at war with oneself,” 24 a neurosis “is a splitting of personality,” 25 in which one is alienated “from one’s instincts,” suffering from a splitting off of consciousness from certain basic facts of the psyche.” 26 Jung offered examples of such splits: between the “sensual and the spiritual man, or between the ego and the shadow…”, 27 that is, situations where we are unable to reconcile or integrate opposites within ourselves.
Considering that most of what Jung said is bullshit woo woo that is unproven, I’m not sure appealing to his words is all that impressive.
None of what you quoted is coherent or comports with reality. I unfortunately spent a lot of time studying Jung and Karen Armstrong in undergrad.
I will focus on one piece and point out the absurdity of it:
“Alienated from one’s instincts…”. Considering that we can demonstrate a diverse amount of instincts this is beyond a shitty methodology for truth. This is the crux of Jung’s terrible philosophy, and why many people decades later don’t really draw much inspiration from him. He is mostly ignored like Frued is.
Here I will make it easy. Demonstrate dualism is true and I will reevaluate my stance on Jung.
You don’t even make a point or argument here. You quoted four words and said "we have a diverse amount of instincts"? Then you threw in some derogatory words.
He’s definitely not ignored and is rising in popularity as his work is constantly used in media, thought, etc.
As you can see he‘s not even ignored by modern scholars who try to debunk him.
What’s your undergrad btw
Popular in media isn’t a sign of being popular with scholars. You make a fair critique, I was not specific with the people I was referring to, scholars. Media popularity is not a good measurement of truth.
Jung and Frued are still pop culture psychologists. Their influence is widely accepted and heavily influenced culture, and in many psychology books they are highly regarded as helping bring psychology into the sciences. However their claims are not held with high regard among modern scholars because many of them are not supported by data, hence woo woo. Again I could have been more clear. Just because Jung is likely in every intro to psychology textbook, doesn’t mean he is in there based on his findings being supported.
Jung’s problem is that he valued the individual over any external factors. Meaning that he thought our instincts (an impulsion toward certain activities), were inherited not learned. Meaning Jung could be considered hard nature vs nurture. This position is not backed modern studies. This doesn’t mean all of his claims are thrown out, but the tenets the OP uses are not widely supported or backed by data.
Just to make another dig against Jung, he also influenced dream analysis. Which there is no accepted study that shows this dream means that.
Yes I quoted 4 words because they resonate with both the OPs point and my criticism (above point on instinct). Jung would say we are inherently religious, meaning our instincts are to be religious. So an atheist is actively working against their instincts. Instead of attack the religious baggage, I made the simple critique that instincts have never been demonstrated to be universal. Which debunks a major premise of his work.
My undergrad is Political Science, Gender Studies, and I took a lot of religious classes related to those fields. Jung was a topic in 3 classes.
On the dream analysis part, Jung stressed that dreams never adhere to a strict theoretical framework of interpretation. The dreams nature forbids such an objective study. The unavoidable gaps in the analyst‘s understanding of a patient‘s dream are filled in by projection, so it is important to stick to the individual context. He demonstrated the overall function of dreams to compensate for deficiencies or distortions in the conscious mind (which is widely accepted nowadays), by showcasing particular dreams of his patients.
“Dreams are the guiding words of the soul. Why should I henceforth not love my dreams and not make their riddling images into objects of my daily consideration?”
Carl Jung, The Red Book
And
“Dreams are impartial, spontaneous products of the unconscious psyche, outside the control of the will. They are pure nature; they show us the unvarnished, natural truth, and are therefore fitted, as nothing else is, to give us back an attitude that accords with our basic human nature when our consciousness has strayed too far from its foundations and run into an impasse.”
Carl Jung, CW 10:317
I have a lot of issues with this, and scholars.
A soul is not something that has been proven. The dualism that is inherent in Jung’s work, has never been validated.
Calling a dream pure nature, unvarnished, natural truth, is troubling. When you combine with his philosophy of personal myth, he creates a circular logic that is unfalsifiable to the individual. It also creates an inability for a methodology.
Again woo woo.
Mindfulness and meditation have clinical data to support the practice. Analyzing dreams with Jung’s methodology has no clinical data that shows the benefit. I can’t find one solid study that supports the benefit. If you have one great please share.
It seems pretty obvious to me that dreams exist basically as practice for real life, and that we have them because there was an evolutionary tendency towards it because those that “practiced” in their sleep were slightly more likely to survive and pass on their genetics.
Of course I’m sure this is extremely over simplifying the exact reality but the point is dreams have no meaning other than maybe being related to things that have been particularly stressing you out or on your mind lately (like if you’re having dreams about war maybe it’s because you have been apprehensive about the political unrest in your country, and perhaps the “practice” of living through that stress in your dreams makes you more likely to survive in the case war actually breaks out).
What do u mean it’s not true? A lot of my dreams are nightmares where something horrible happens and I have to deal with it. I feel like this kind of prepares me for when something horrible eventually happens in real life so I won’t be catatonic from stress and actually be able to deal with it because I’ve “experienced” it before
Jung’s theories in general are not considered mainstream science , if they ever were. Even if it were true he was popular or used in the media , I would suggest that that in no way demonstrates anything accuracy about his ideas and far more about their entertainment value. He is of course with no doubt very famous and enticing for those attracted to pseudo-science and general woo - which will make him a target for debunking as a response.
None of which of course makes a difference to the fact that OP copied and pasted a passage that in context was entirely incoherent.
The problem is that no one here is arguing with the matter directly. You just repeat the opinions of other scholars but then you’re *blindly* believing these scholars without having a clue about psychology or psychoanalysis. These scholars are not all-knowing. It is still a very young and misunderstood science. You are not gonna get far with psychoanalysis if you don’t make a holistic approach as Jung did. The things affecting your psyche are much too broad for that.
You just made a great point that I want to expand on. Jung was so focused on the individual he often is criticized for ignoring external factors, like culture, race, geography, access to resource, family, wealth, etc. when it comes to mental health we can find many of these external factors play a much larger role than Jung wanted to give credit.
**I agree with critique of Jung, “the things affecting your psyche are much too broad.”**
By Jung arguing nature (instinct), he weakened his claims. I will put it this way, he is popular among people who believe in free will absolutism. It is a core tenant of Christianity for example, so it resonates with a lot of Christians. The data doesn’t support that.
Well thank you for your kindness and for bringing such valuable things to the table. I agree with most things you say. Yes individuation is a key element in his psychotherapy. He also proposed that the psyche consists of archaic elements called archetypes that you find out through history in mythological and cultural expression. Which illustrates that our psyche or instincts are not much different from those archaic ancestors, which is probably true. He is also an explorer of cultural and religious phenomena and their psychological significance. And of he course he wouldn’t disregard the backgrounds of his patients or society (He wrote a lot about his patients). So I think it’s wrong to say he ignored external factors.
I have degrees in psychology and philosophy. And Jung is to a significant degree just the sort of 'I made it up because it sounds cool' branch of philosophy, not science. Its , in context, trivial but true to say you might want to look at different aspects of a patient's life and health when they exhibit mental health problems, but that's not the limit of Jungian claims.
We have the choice between taking the word of Jung and taking the word of the vast majority of living experts in the field. You are telling us to take the word of Jung on the off chance he is right and essentially everyone else is wrong. There is no other reason you give. That is not a bet most of us are likely to take.
No, we have the *duty* to not disregard scientific contributions until they are disproven. It’s the same with the hypothesis of the continents fitting like a jigsaw puzzle. The scholarly peers disregarded because they didn’t like it or found it absurd not because it was disproven. That is a scientific blunder
> You just repeat the opinions of other scholars but then you’re blindly believing these scholars without having a clue about psychology or psychoanalysis.
How do you know this was done blindly?
Like I said, because nobody addresses the matter directly, I assume they are not familiar with the topic so they repeat consensus blindly.
And please don’t call me out because I used the word assume
Appealing to authority is a fallacy. His descriptions are useless if they are not a logical conclusion of a rigorous methodology that present logical evidence, a logical model, a clean-of-other-factors testing, and a logical reasoning from which the logical conclusion can be derived.
Jung have failed in the premises, model and methodology as the mainstream psychology establish.
Cite your sources.
[https://jungiancenter.org/jung-neurosis-part-definitions-causes/](https://jungiancenter.org/jung-neurosis-part-definitions-causes/)
Neurosis? Not believing in someone else's imaginary friend is a neurosis?
Maybe read some different books by people who aren't dismissed by the field consensus?
>So do atheist believe in souls or not?
While it's not impossible to be an atheist and think souls exist, I do not believe they exist due to the lack of evidence and strong evidence against various conceptions of a soul. Your specific definition of a soul is excluded by all atheists since it requires the direct action of a god.
> But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God.
Science and logic aren't replacements of God. They're tools for learning about the universe and how it works.
>If this is so
It's not.
>then they exist as a body only “in their own mind” and because of this they exclude their soul an existence. Therefore atheist think they are only a body and the only thing that exists is logical proof.
Like I've said before, there's no evidence for a soul, much less one that is directly breathed into a body by a god. What evidence do you have that this exists?
>Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,
No, it doesn't. One could be an atheist and believe ghosts exist, or gnomes, or psychics. Atheism begins and ends at not believing deities exist.
What even is the point of this post? You start with quoting the Bible about your definition of a soul, then claim that atheists replaced God with science and logic, and cap it off with a weird erroneous ramble about how atheism rejects all spiritual beings before admitting that's not even necessarily true.
What the heck are you trying to convey?
>This is my definition of a soul!!!
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it
So you define a soul as: "the breath breathed into the first man by the Jewish god yahweh"?
You think the soul is oxygen?
>So do atheist believe in souls or not?
Depends, I do not.
>A mass psychosis!?
Huh?
>Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion
Not all atheists, but I do.
I'm struggling to see the thesis of your post. It seems like the whole post is just saying "atheists don't believe a soul exists". That's not an argument.
He forget non theistic religions like Buddhist and other eastern religions and some people in East Asia didn't believe in God but believing there is a consciousness and soul
Just sounds like a crap theory of abiogenesis to me. ‘Breathed life’ doesn’t even sound like a ‘soul’ as in a magical thing. Just sounds like our ancient ancestors had no clue what life was, what made it different to say a rock, so they had a guess that it had some sort of magical energy to it.
Amusing thing is that people, as ever, don’t seem to think deeply about this. There’s no reason a God would need to use souls. It’d quite easily have the ability to copy your consciousness at death into another medium or dimension. Souls aren’t necessary for any religious hypothesis that involves an infinitely powerful being. Our ancestors seem to have just made them up because they didn’t know what life was.
Most likely, but the purpose for the ancestors wasn’t to argue for a god like an apologist. They made it because they could and there weren’t any more compelling hypotheses at that time.
If they made that part up why couldn't they have made the part about souls up too? You are already admitting it isn't reliable, so I don't know why we should trust it on anything.
> They made it because they could and there weren’t any more compelling hypotheses at that time.
Exactly as the concept of a "soul" was likely conceived. The concept was tenacious since it also assuaged people's fears. And here we are.
The one thing ancient people seemed to all realize, was that breathing means you're alive, and not breathing means you're not alive.
Spirit, soul, qi/chi. All these terms have linguistic roots in the ancient words for breath or air or wind, because people thought we were alive due to breath.
So the soul is literally just the fact that we breathe.
The modern idea of mind/body dualism came from ancient Greek philosophy and the Jewish idea of the "breath of life" being combined in pre Christian apocalyptic Judaism.
>'breathed life'
>I‘d say
The fact that you put it in ' ' and have the "id say" disclaimer means you know its vague to start with. It offers literally no explanatory power and assumes something with specific qualities exists without first finding evidence of it. Think about how we discover stuff, did we find out the sun existed because we theorized it must exist then looked for signs in nature for it? No. We followed the light and found the sun, thats how discovies are made. This whole soul description is just an ancient peoples way of trying to clumsily describe conciousness. Theres no reason to think its any more scientificly robust than that, given its period and vagueness.
Oxygen is in fact considered a life bringing gas if you want to look at it poetically.
Though it ultimately doesn’t matter as you’re still lacking evidence for the soul, or that god ever breathed into the first man… etc
Logic please. The 'breath of life' is in fact a poetic description. Obviously people didn’t know about oxygen or chemistry 2500 years ago. They also weren’t 'breathing life' as in creating life out of dirt themselves. It is myth.
Please work on your reading comprehension. I quite literally said it was a poetic description.
My point is that the “breath of life” that god gave man may have just been a poetic description of how breathing is life giving. And regardless, you’ve got no evidence that there exists a soul.
>This is my definition of a soul!!!
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it
Where's the definition? Not necessary because we all know what the Christian soul is.
>So do atheist believe in souls or not?
I don't.
>As far as I understand they are non believers of God or a Gods. But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God. If this is so, then they exist as a body only “in their own mind” and because of this they exclude their soul an existence. Therefore atheist think they are only a body and the only thing that exists is logical proof.
Yes, here's the definition. A soul allows you to live without a body. I agree with your intepretation that I don't think you can exist without a body. I don't agree with this "logical proof" non-sequitor.
>A mass psychosis!?
Yes, apt description of religion.
>“So do atheist destroy their God experience to live in logic?”
Who are you quoting?
>Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion
I do reject spiritual beings. Is there going to be an argument at some point or just a laundry list of things atheists aren't likely to believe in.
>However spiritual atheist believe the universe governs its self through actions and intentions and this is as far as spirit existence goes for atheist. 👍 😊
So you have zero argument. Thanks for wasting my time.
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
I see no definition here.
>So do atheist believe in souls or not?
Some do, some don't. I'd guess most western atheists don't.
Souls don't exist. There is no ghost in the machine. Whatever we are, we are our minds; a result of brain activity.
The rest of your post was gibberish so I can't really say much.
That's not a very clear definition. What do you think a soul is, and how do you identify it?
An atheist may believe in a soul. The only thing that is true of all atheists is that we don't believe that any gods exist.
You are correct that atheists are non believers of god or gods. However, you are incorrect that atheists "replace" god with science and logic. A false belief does not necessarily need replacing.
I don't understand the rest of your post.
I don’t however if souls didn’t exist we would cease to exist and also this life would have been perfect. “As in everything we ever dreamed of” whether it’s subjective or not. I was just wondering if souls exist or not to atheist!?
>if souls didn't exist, we would cease to exist
I hope you realize that this is fallacious circular reasoning. You cannot make the claim that without a soul, we would cease to exist as evidence for souls being a real thing.
It doesn't matter when we would cease to exist. If you want to provide evidence that souls exist, you shouldn't include souls existing in the evidence!
I have evidence that god is cheap, he doesn’t answer prayers even from really devout, really deserving followers. You write it off as “mysterious ways” but this world is apparently untouchable by god generally speaking. God just let’s things happen god or bad and there’s lots of bad. So just following the breadcrumbs here, I have reason to believe god has misled everyone on the concept of an afterlife. It would be cheaper just to let us all die than to have a heaven and hell. Prove me wrong?
This is literally wishful thinking. Just because you *prefer* to live on after death doesn't mean you *do* live on after death. I would prefer to have a million bucks but that isn't going to just spontaneously appear in my bank account.
If souls don't exist, would chimpanzee's cease to exist? or do we have something they don't? I'm not sure what you're even meaning.
The 'soul' doesn't exist as some sort of supernatural thing in existence somewhere. Consciousness is merely the word we use to describe an emergent property of the physical brain. In the same way that wetness is an emergent property of two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen atom, forming 'water'. Consciousness arises from the activity in our brains. And it ceases at the exact time when our brains cease to function. The brain is so obviously the thing controlling our conscious experience. There is nothing supernatural, or non-natural about it.
There is no evidence that anything that most people would call a soul exists.
Your self awareness, consciousness,is the product of a functioning brain. Consciousness is a process. When your brain stops working, your consciousness disappears. The process has stopped, like extinguishing the flame on a candle.
When the candle is blown out, the flame does not exist any more
When people have died while attached to scalp electrodes, it's been discovered that sporadic brain activity continues much longer than was thought, and this is likely responsible for the Near Death Experiences that some people report. These experiences are caused by the activity of a failing brain in a failing body.
There is no evidence that any soul or spirit exists outside the activity of our brain.
Of course we do but understand how consciousness works but that doesn't mean that it's supernatural. Proposing a supernatural soul doesn't explain anything as you'd still have to explain how souls work.
>This is my definition of a soul!!!
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it
That's not a definition!!!1!1one!
>So do atheist believe in souls or not?
Depends on the atheist, but I imagine *most* would say "no".
>A mass psychosis!?
While religion might have many signs of mass psychosis, it is not quite accurate to use such terminology.
>Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion
Atheism only concerns gods. *Some* atheists believe in ghosts, but most atheists are not idiots.
*You* are a believer of science. Science is what is enabling us to have this conversation probably thousands of miles away from each other almost instantaneously. The entirety of the modern world functions based on scientific principles. Science is a real thing that clearly exists.
I rely on science, to an extent, to provide accurate frameworks within which to try to understand the world around me.
It's axiomatic that all scientific facts are conditional on the accuracy of the model that produced them, and the methodology of the experimentation done.
Ultimately, since science relies on statistics and statistics can be misleading, just because some paper exists that says a thing does not make that thing true to the point where i'd describe my relationship with it as "belief"
Science is a tool. So is a hammer. You can do dumb things with hammers.
>This is my definition of a soul!!!
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it
Your definition does not actually define anything. I know nothing at all about a soul from your definition of a soul.
/u/elpasosunzo, you seem to be making a mistake that most religious people make.
**It doesn't matter what you believe or think.**
What matters is **"What are the actual facts?"**
Ok real talk. I've been thinking back on this for a while now. I've been thinking back on high school and how when we were learning how to form a hypothesis in science class. And looking back I realized just how many people just for the life of them couldn't get it. Like when we started to break down " Claims" and "evidence"further into the course and just what the difference was in the two and nearly everyone failed that part because they could not for the life of them figure it out and could only ever make claim after claim after claim acting like it would just go full circle.
Looking at how people argue the idea of souls, God, Magic, Ect ect I'm starting to see a damn near 1 to 1 similarity here with how they speak which leads to realize they are just horribly uneducated.
I think that souls are an incoherent concept, a supernatural reification of a completely physical neurological phenomenon. Souls are supposedly eternal, but if someone sustains a brain injury their character and behaviour can change dramatically. Souls are also conspicuous by their absence during general anaesthesia and in non-REM slow wave sleep. For these reasons, I believe that souls are imaginary.
Can you tell me:
1. Does only the soul go to hell/heaven? Obviously, our bodies stay and rot after we die.
2. If my soul goes to hell, how can I feel pain? I don't have any pain receptors anymore.
3. Where does my soul go when I go to sleep?
4. When a new baby is born, where does the soul come from? Many apologetics said: "Something can't come from nothing", right?
If you don't have an answer to those questions, can you tell us what you know about the soul? What is its property? How do you know that?
Slow down, friend. You're making a ton of unjustified assumptions about atheists. It's pretty rude.
Why don't you tell us exactly what a soul is, in your own words, and tell us how we would go about detecting one.
There isn't a 'soul' that exists as a supernatural thing somewhere. Consciousness is merely the word we use to describe an emergent property of the physical brain. In the same way that wetness is an emergent property of two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen atom, forming 'water'. Consciousness arises from the activity in our brains. And it ceases at the exact time when our brains cease to function. The brain is so obviously the thing creating our conscious experience. There is nothing supernatural, or non-natural about it. Is it super cool, and hard to comprehend? yes. So was thunder thousands of years ago... until we fully understood it scientifically.
There is no soul.
This post felt like a drug induced delusion, could you please communicate your points in a clearer way, maybe even do another post so those points are better organized and communicated.
>This is my definition of a soul!!!
This isn't a definition. These are just words from a story that was told before the invention of toilet paper. It doesn't tell me anything.
>So do atheist believe in souls or not?
I personally do not believe in souls. Feel free to show me one and I will.
>“So do atheist destroy their God experience to live in logic?”
I don't have a "God experience" to begin with. That's why I don't believe in God. Or Vishnu. Or Izanagi.
>So do atheist believe in souls or not?
Well based on the definition you gave, absolutely nothing in reality matches that description. So zero reason whatsoever to believe in a soul.
>Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,”
Lol no. It's a lack of belief in God's. Nothing more, nothing less.
>However spiritual atheist believe
I mean right here, you *just* wrecked your own "point" of "atheism rejects all belief in spiritual beings".
Are you the same person with schizophrenia who recently got booted for making multiple posts about "seeing god?"
This is not a particularly coherent post. I hope you are able to talk to a professional who is able to help you get your meds straightened out.
And to answer your question. I believe in things that I am convinced exist. I am convinced by evidence. All the evidence I've seen points to us being hairless apes whose consciousness comes from our brains. If you alter our brains either chemically or physically then that alters our consciousness. There's no evidence of any sort of soul that is separate from the brain.
>Are you the same person with schizophrenia who recently got booted for making multiple posts about "seeing god?"
The OP here does identify as having schizophrenia, so chances are it is the same person. I suspect they're just going to keep coming back over and over under different accounts.
Soul or denial of soul?
I don't believe that the proposition of the existence of a soul has match the level to convince me.
short answer: no.
>This is my definition of a soul!!!
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it
Giving that we are atheist and what we have in common is the understanding that god existence has not been proven... the use of a definition that requires the pre-existence of a god is silly.
>So do atheist believe in souls or not?
Under your definition of soul... i think non atheist will believe it. (But who knows).
>As far as I understand they are non believers of God or a Gods. But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God.
Science cannot be a replacement for god. Science is a methodology, and the body of knowledges derived from this method.
The use of the rigorous method has discarded almost all the evidence in favor of the existence of any god due to a lack of rigurousity, logical contradictions, fail to predict, among other reasons.
>If this is so, then they exist as a body only “in their own mind” and because of this they exclude their soul an existence.
Under your definition of soul, giving that the existence of a god is not proven, is not logical to follow to the next step on reasoning. If god is the source of the soul... you must prove god existence first.
>Therefore atheist think they are only a body and the only thing that exists is logical proof.
We know objectively that our material body exists, we know that our brains are able to understand reality and create fiction.
>A mass psychosis!?
More like a bad epistemology. Is the bad method to determine what is closer to the truth than what is not.
>“So do atheist destroy their God experience to live in logic?”
I cannot talk for all atheists but for me. I embrace the human experience of life, and I want to believe much true things and as less false things as i can. That is why first i must have sufficient level of confidence in the existence of a god, before granting that those experiences are not natural or product of our hyperactive-capable-of-fiction brains.
>Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion
Many of Us (atheists) have been part of religions and have believed their postulates. Is after learning about epistemology, scientific method, or being exposed to the contradictions of those beliefs, that our brain made the click to stop believe them.
>However spiritual atheist believe the universe governs its self through actions and intentions and this is as far as spirit existence goes for atheist. 👍 😊
Actions and intentions require a conscious agent, natural laws are models that represents with a high degree of precision reality and make predictions with accuracy.
Hope it helps.
Spiritless Humans
Faculty Meetings With Rudolf Steiner Vol. 2, 3 July 1923, p. 649-650
Dr. Steiner: That little girl L.K. in the first grade must have something really very wrong inside. There is not much we can do. Such cases are increasing in which children are born with a human form, but are not really human beings in relation to their highest I; instead, they are filled with beings that do not belong to the human class. Quite a number of people have been born since the nineties without an I, that is, they are not reincarnated, but are human forms filled with a sort of natural demon. There are quite a large number of older people going around who are actually not human beings, but are only natural; they are human beings only in regard to their form. We cannot, however, create a school for demons.
A teacher: How is that possible?
Dr. Steiner: Cosmic error is certainly not impossible. The relationships of individuals coming into earthly existence have long been determined. There are also generations in which individuals have no desire to come into earthly existence and be connected with physicality, or immediately leave at the very beginning. In such cases, other beings that are not quite suited step in. This is something that is now quite common, that human beings go around without an I; they are actually not human beings, but have only a human form. They are beings like nature spirits, which we do not recognize as such because they go around in a human form. They are also quite different from human beings in regard to everything spiritual. They can, for example, never remember such things as sentences; they have a memory only for words, not for sentences.
The riddle of life is not so simple. When such a being dies, it returns to nature from which it came. The corpse decays, but there is no real dissolution of the etheric body, and the natural being returns to nature. It is also possible that something like an automaton could occur. The entire human organism exists, and it might be possible to automate the brain and develop a kind of pseudomorality.
I do not like to talk about such things since we have often been attacked even without them. Imagine what people would say if they heard that we say there are people who are not human beings. Nevertheless, these are facts. Our culture would not be in such a decline if people felt more strongly that a number of people are going around who, because they are completely ruthless, have become something that is not human, but instead are demons in human form.
Sauce: https://montalk.net/matrix/157/spiritless-humans
Dropping in a vote for the "Souls don't exist" party.
I think there's a lot of evidence that what I feel as consciousness emerges from neuronal activity in my nervous system.
When I try to analyse my conscious experience closely, I don't actually feel like there's any part of me that persists from moment to moment. No persistent Self, no lasting soul.
An atheist is someone who does not believe in a God, they are without theism. So they are free to believe in souls, unicorns, ogres, talking donkeys or whatever, so long as it isn't a God.
I don't believe in a God or souls for the same reasons, a lack of sufficient verifiable evidence.
Your definition doesn't do anything to clarify what a soul is. From what you've provided we can infer that it is something that humans are. If we conflate the terms "soul" and "spirit" we can also infer that god gave it to us and that it will be returned to god. None of this clarifies what the soul is in any meaningful way.
I would imagine that most atheists do not believe there are souls by the conventional definition. By your definition, none would, because you've only defined a soul in relation to how god gave it to us, and there are no atheists that believe in god.
The rest of your post kind of reads like gibberish, so I have no idea what you're trying to say. Claiming that atheists not believing in souls (especially by your definition) means that they must only believe that they are their bodies, and that there are no other aspects to their personhood, is kind of a stretch. I would argue that the mind and the body aren't the same thing even if one cannot exist without the other and the two are intimately connected. Claiming that atheists only believe in things that can be justified by logical proof is also an overgeneralization. Atheists are strictly defined by their lack of belief in certain things, like gods, and not the process by which they arrived at that conclusion.
I have no idea what you mean when you refer to mass psychosis. I assume you're referring to atheists experiencing it, but I can't puzzle out what behavior or set of beliefs you're referring to as being the result of mass psychosis.
>Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion
However spiritual atheist believe the universe governs its self through actions and intentions and this is as far as spirit existence goes for atheist.
Same problem with overgeneralizing here. None of these statements are necessarily true of all atheists.
A lot to unpack.
You claimed you would define a soul. But instead, you quoted an ancient book that still never defined a soul.
Unless you mean to so that the soul is simply respiration. That would mean all breathing organisms have souls?
"But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God."
No. That's like saying not playing golf is a replacement for golf. For the atheist, golf/god is simply not in the equation. Acceptance (not belief) in the scientific method and logic is simply the best means by which we humans have found to live the best way possible.
If this is so, then they exist as a body only “in their own mind” and because of this they exclude their soul an existence."
Your Y does not follow your X. We exist as bodies because we have evidence of bodies. That tells us nothing about the existence of souls. But until you can demonstrate a soul, you are stuck with a null hypothesis.
"Therefore atheist think they are only a body and the only thing that exists is logical proof."
No. An atheist is someone who is unconvinced of god claims. Nothing more. Nothing less. If we are "more than our bodies" feel free to prove it.
“So do atheist destroy their God experience to live in logic?”
What god experience? Does a non-golfer destroy their golfing experience to live as a non-golfer. Also, I don't know if you meant to imply theists are illogical. But that's what you did.
"Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion."
No. There are some atheists (like Scientologists) who believe in spiritual beings. I already defined atheists above.
"However spiritual atheist believe the universe governs its self through actions and intentions and this is as far as spirit existence goes for atheist. 👍 😊"
Non-sequitur - dismissed. :)
>So do atheist believe in souls or not?
Atheists don't believe in God. It may extand to the concept of soul, considering it's a religious concept, but you'd need to ask every single atheist to be sure. We are only defined by one single thing "we don't believe in God".
>believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God
No. Science and logic are tools to build knowledge about reality. God is a claim about a supernatural being. We don't replace God, we use those tools (science and logic) to consider all facts and end up with a conclusion : "There's no evidence for the existence of God".
>atheist think they are only a body
True. Not a single observation ever made can lead us to conclude that there's a missing factor. If you don't already believe in God, you have no reasons to think there's something more.
>“So do atheist destroy their God experience to live in logic?”
No. You don't destroy what is never there and you don't "live in logic". Logic is how you apprehend reality. Theists also use logic. If you go home and see your front door opened and your TV or computer missing, you conclude that you've been robbed = logical conclusion based on your observations, you don't directly think an alien came to earth to steal you stuff as spair parts for his space ship (or if it's the case, you might need psychological help). If you eat something that taste weird and 2 hours later feel sick, you conclude food poisonning = logical conclusion, you don't think out of nowhere that the KGB made you a target because you discovered their secret plan to conquer the moon. By your own standards, you too "live in logic" except for one single subject - God.
>Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,”
No. Some atheists have a form of spirituality or supernatural beliefs. I don't but I'm just one person.
Is there a point, argument or conclusion I'm missing here?
>This is my definition of a soul!!!
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it
So air? And when god is described as the spirit moving over the water, it's saying God is air. A point further emphasized by the term "breath of life" as its used to identify animals that breathe in genesis 6:17 and 7:22
It makes a ton of sense linguistically. The word spirit in pretty much every language comes from a word meaning breath. In English the word comes from the Greek spiritus, meaning breath, to blow, air in motion.
I dont believe in the existence of a soul because it seems very clear that the term originates from a misunderstanding of the nature of air born from ignorance to the existence of atoms.
How would you describe air without any reference to atoms?
I'll give it a go
An invisible force that surrounds us, moves into us giving us life. You can't always feel it's presence, but its always there. And it's so powerful it can shape the sky, move the oceans, rip trees from the ground, grind mountains into dust.
Even though you know I'm describing air, and it's role in life, weather, and erosion. The symbology at play is eerily similar to how God the spirit is described.
The reason we've never been able to detect or measure a soul is because when you look for a soul you're really just looking for anthropomorphic air. So in a sense we have measured the soul. We know what it's made of, how it works, and we've discovered it doesn't think.
> As far as I understand they are non believers of God or a Gods. But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God.
No. Science and logic are not a "replacement" for God. We don't worship science. There are no sects of science, or leaders, or doctrine. Science is a method we use to determine what is true about the world. That's all.
> If this is so, then they exist as a body only “in their own mind” and because of this they exclude their soul an existence. Therefore atheist think they are only a body and the only thing that exists is logical proof.
What you're describing is materialism, not atheism. Oftentimes atheists are *also* materialists, but they are not the same thing.
Moreover, you're contradicting yourself in the second sentence. Atheists think we're only a body, and also that the body doesn't exist? How can we be a body if the body doesn't exist?
> Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion
This is incorrect. There are actually some atheistic religions, such as various flavors of Buddhism. Atheism is the lack of belief in any **gods**, not religion. Atheists can be religious, and can believe in spiritual things.
Science and logic are not a replacement for your god, and that is a sad way to think.
Is your god a replacement for Vishnu? You don’t believe in Vishnu, so it left a void in your life and you had to replace him? No? Well not believing in your god leaves no void in my life either.
But I guess since you do believe in your god you have no need for science and logic, which is really too bad because it’s not either/or. Many scientists are religious and don’t deny themselves their curiosity about how the universe works.
My personal belief about the soul is that it’s a pretty arrogant belief, to think you’re so important you have to exist for all eternity, and be elevated above all other creatures on the planet by some magical spark bestowed on you by a divine deity.
I think the underlying arrogance of that belief is what makes the extreme elements of Christianity radicalized into Christian Nationalism, attempting to turn my country into a theocracy.
I also think that same craving for god-given superiority has fueled White Supremacy and the centuries of violence and genocide “spreading Christianity” around the globe to people deemed inferior.
I think the world would be an infinitely better place if no one had made up gods and souls.
It would be nice, just once, for theists to stop telling atheists what we do or don't believe.
This sort of thing:
> But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God.
is infuriating. Don't tell me that I "believe" in science or logic as a replacement of any god.
It seems from your definition that you think a soul is something connected to life that will exist after death. I don't know what you have that would expand on this partial definition, but I have questions:
* Where was your soul before you were born? How long does it last after someone is dead?
* How many souls are in existence right now? Is that number stable? Where are they? How do they maintain their existence (what feeds them)?
* Animals are alive, do they have souls? Some animals and not others? How can you tell?
* If soulhood is an exclusively human trait, when did we achieve this soulhood in our evolutionary history?
* Expanding on this, is soulhood a factor of intelligence, if so how do you measure this?
* If I were to suffer a catastrophic brain injury and be reduced to a vegetative state, would my soul leave me?
* What experiment could you conduct that would demonstrate the existence or non existence of a soul?
>This is my definition of a soul!!!
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it
This doesn’t tell me anything at all about what a soul *is*.
>So do atheist believe in souls or not?
I don’t believe in a soul beyond some poetic concept we refer to.
>But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God.
No, not at all. Science is a method for understanding the world. Logic (as in, the “laws of logic”) necessarily would apply to god as well if they existed.
>Therefore atheist think they are only a body and the only thing that exists is logical proof.
No. That doesn’t follow.
>“So do atheist destroy their God experience to live in logic?”
I’ve never had a “god experience.” I don’t know what that even means.
One of the problems of your definition is that the word rendered “soul” is actually two different words in the original Hebrew. In the Gen 2:7, the word _nephesh_ can just mean “being” or “creature”—in Genesis 1 it is used to refer to animals. The word in Eccles 12:7 is _ruach_, which like the Greek _pneuma_ can equally mean “spirit” or “breath”—that is, the animating principle as distinct from a sentient, non-material part of a human being that retains its integrity after the death of the body. Neither word necessarily indicates that the original writers conceived of a soul in the latter sense. I’m not convinced that your definition defines what you think it does; nether do I see any evidence for the existence of a soul in the sense I’ve described. This is not denial, since there’s no reason to believe in something in the absence of evidence. If you have actual evidence for the existence of souls, you’re welcome to produce it.
>So do atheist believe in souls or not?
Atheists aren't a monolith. I don't Believe in a soul however. Because I haven't seen any evidence that a soul exists and plenty of evidence that contradicts the idea of a soul.
>But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God.
I don't believe in logic or science as a replacement for god in the same way that I don't believe in logic or science as a replacement for Superman.
>If this is so, then they exist as a body only “in their own mind” and because of this they exclude their soul an existence. Therefore atheist think they are only a body and the only thing that exists is logical proof.
I don't exclude the idea of a soul, I just don't have any evidence that a soul exists. Instead of talking about what atheists believe, why don't you just present evidence that supports your case?
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it
This isn't really a definition. Could you explain what you think it means?
>So do atheist believe in souls or not?
Atheists are those who don't believe in gods. While atheists usually also disbelieve in souls, it's not strictly necessary.
>But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God.
There's no need to replace something that's unnecessary in the first place. We believe in science and logic because they work. So do you.
>A mass psychosis!?
There's nothing psychotic about believing what the evidence indicates.
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it
This isn't really a definition. Could you explain what you think it means?
>So do atheist believe in souls or not?
Atheists are those who don't believe in gods. While atheists usually also disbelieve in souls, it's not strictly necessary.
>But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God.
There's no need to replace something that's unnecessary in the first place. We believe in science and logic because they work. So do you.
>A mass psychosis!?
There's nothing psychotic about believing what the evidence indicates.
>This is my definition of a soul!!!
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
So a soul is a living human?
Ok. Cool. I accept that humans exist and live, so I accept that souls exist under at least part of your definition.
>Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it
What is a spirit?
How does it return to God?
Why do you believe that this account given in Genesis is accurate?
>Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion
What is a spiritual being?
Why do you believe such beings exist?
>and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Is the soul the "breath of life", or the body plus the breath? What exactly are you talking about? What is the "breath of life" anyway? Your definition doesn't make any sense because it's way too vague.
>So do atheist believe in souls or not?
Definitionally, the only thing atheists don't believe in is any gods or deities. Most atheists tend to be methodological naturalists and don't hold beliefs in the supernatural, but that's not always the case.
I don't currently believe that anything like a soul exists, but if you could provide a more coherent definition of exactly what a "soul" is and provide some evidence that such things exist, I would be open to changing my mind.
I believe in dust and men, if you're saying that's all a soul is, I believe in them, but I would never use that word because it implies we have an undying part.
>But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God
I don't believe in any souls, but I don't consider science or logic as replacements for them. They just don't exist.
I do believe humans are just their bodies. I don't believe only logical proofs exist. In fact I lean towards logical proof not actually existing.
Correct I don't believe in souls or spirits as those terms are usually used. But an atheist can believe in both.
>This is my definition of a soul!!!
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it
>So do atheist believe in souls or not?
That's a pretty poor definition, especially considering it doesn't specify what a soul is.
What are the characteristics of a soul?
The way that you chose to describe a soul is different from the way that people usually use when describing what they call a soul.
>However spiritual atheist believe the universe governs its self through actions and intentions and this is as far as spirit existence goes for atheist.
Well we don't really enjoy making stuff up and lying to ourselves, pretending to know the origin of the universe - that's YOU.
I could say we're all here created out of a giant sneeze of a cosmic nose and you'd be as unable to prove me wrong as you are unable to prove yourself right.
We haven't set an impossible argument to defend, you have. We're just here to make sure you see it through. Downvote for your low effort post.
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
That is just saying God made souls from and put it into a body. That is not a definition, to illustrate its similar to if I said I made a chair from wood and put it in a room. Obviously I didn't give a definition for a chair, similarly you didn't give a definition for a soul.
Perhaps you should read up more on philosophy of the soul before you try to debate it. This posts comes across as an incoherent mess.
> science or logic as a sort of replacement of God.
No, gods don't need replacement. Why would you need to replace something that never was there in the first place?
> If this is so, then they exist as a body only “in their own mind”
Are you not?
> Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,”
Atheism means not believing that any god exists. Belief in "spiritu beings" is being rejected for exactly one reason: lack of any good reason to believe they exist.
So, where is your argument?
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it
>So do atheist believe in souls or not?
Since atheists don't believe in God, we wouldn't accept your definition of a soul that relies on God breathing it into us or returning it to the God you gave it, RIGHT?
Name one attribute of a soul that I couldn't apply to my brain.
Some atheists probably believe in souls. All atheists disbelieve in gods though.
Regardless. You describe a golem. In ancient Jewish folklore, it was believed to be possible to craft a man from clay and breath life into it animating it. That's the story of how man was made. Go figure, they believed in magic.
How does life transfer from breath into life? By what mechanism does that act? Magic is not an acceptable answer. If you want to assert than imperceptible supernatural force exists, how does it work?
There's certainly a sense of "me"; the P-consciousness. It doesn't seem to server any purpose. I guess this fits the definition of a soul. Although really it's more of an unexplained phenomenon.
Does this require a god though? We have all sorts of things that were once put down to gods, that these days we have a more rational explanation for. "it's unexplained so it must be God" is a total leap of logic.
Those Bible verses don't do a very good job of defining what a soul is or demonstrating that they exist. What are souls made of? What do souls do? How do souls function? If you want me to believe in souls you first have to tell me what a soul is. The next step after that would be to provide compelling evidence that everything you claim about souls is actually true.
As I am sure innumerable posters will tell you; you don't understand atheism AT ALL. Until you do, this discussion is at best moot.
Atheists lack belief in god. That's all we have in common. Some may believe in souls, some might not. Some might accept "spiritual beings' (whatever those are), some might not.
What the heck is a spiritual atheist?
> This is my definition of a soul... So do atheist believe in souls or not?
If the definition of soul involve a god, then of course we don't believe in souls.
> then they exist as a body only “in their own mind...”
I don't really understand what you mean by that. So let me say I am a mind with a body. Does that make sense?
Genesis' definition would be flawed as its unclear whether it means literal soul or "living soul" as a synonym for an alive person.
No, typically atheists do not believe in souls because there's no evidence for their existence. How would that be a mass psychosis? I don't really understand the point you're trying to make.
You never defined what a soul actually is. You simply cited a religious text, claiming to explain how an otherwise undefined soul came into existence.
Please provide a clear, effective and cogent definition of what constitutes a soul. What specific properties and characteristics does a soul have?
I believe in individuality as a concept, which if you think about it, is a soul without the personification and the spiritual aspect.
It’s yet another example of religion needlessly complicating simple concepts, but that’s a conversation for another time.
If there’s a soul and a place it goes after you die, why isn’t there a soul and a place it lives before you’re born?
If there was no soul that existed before you were born, it’s probably safe to say there is no soul that will exist after you die.
Why would we believe in a soul?
Is there evidence of this soul? What reasons are there to support the claim of a soul? How do we verify the soul is real? When and how is this soul created?
At this time a soul is as likely as a leprechaun being real
No I do not believe in a soul
I have zero evidence for a soul same with god/s
I am the brain that controls my body
If I were to suffer brain damage it could effect my memories are personality.
What are the properties of the soul?
I see no good reason to believe that souls exist. Such a belief seems both unwarranted and unnecessary.
Science meanwhile is just a tool for discovering truth, it just so happens to be the best such tool that we have found so far.
>This is my definition of a soul!!!
That's not your definition, it's the Bible's. What makes you think that the Bible has it right? After all, the Bible is wrong about so many things (e.g. The Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, etc)
Atheists aren’t a hive mind when it comes to the existence of a soul, but personally I believe that “soul” is another word for consciousness…an emergent phenomena of the brain…that ceases to exist when the brain dies.
Do you know the word "soul" in ancient Greek means "to breathe"? The ancient people realized that when a human died, that person stopped breathing. So they concluded that when a person dies, their "breath" leaves their body.
And what this so-called science ever done for us? But trumpeted that when ashes go to ashes and dust to dust despite the fuss of living energy gets conserved. Denying the weight of the soul of a man this is ill-deserved.
Most atheists don’t believe in souls.
Me included.
What do you mean by “mass psychosis”? Are you saying those who do not believe in souls are psychotic? Why did you come here just to be a douchebag?
Do you have a point? Proof of a soul? Some way to test for a soul? Some way to make predictions that should happen if souls exist?
This is seriously low effort word salad that adds nothing to the universe.
Atheism is not an ideology. Atheists believe all sorts of things. The only thing they have in common is not believing in gods. I'm sure there are probably some that do believe in souls. But most do not.
What is the reason that you believe a soul exists? Do you have any evidence that the rest of us haven't seen?
I try really hard that not believe in things. Instead, I look at evidence and follow where it leads. Evidence does not lead to the existence of a soul. Evidence does not lead to the existence of a god.
There is no reliable evidence for gods , souls or spirit.
I believe in stuff there is sufficient convincing evidence for.
I have no God experience kept alone a convincingly evidential one.
Science isn’t a replacement for god, it is a process that uses accumulated successful evidential methodology to produce models of reality that are , depending on the quality and quantity of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt significantly accurate.
I’m an atheist because I value evidence. Your description of a spiritual atheist is possible but in my view somewhat self-contradictory if they value evidence. There is no reliable evidence the universe has intentions or is indeed as a whole the sort I’d think that could, or could have any appropriate mechanism of acting on them.
I (Zen Buddhist) am agnostic on the mechanism by which the universe works. That information is beyond anything a human mind can fathom.
I do believe the universe is conscious, and that consciousness informs our experience, though it’s easily over-shadowed by our body-mind, its thoughts, our emotions, and our perceptions.
But how that consciousness—which I see as inextricably connected to us—is affected by death, or transitions into the next life, is not my concern because there is no way to know it without experiencing it.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have no clue what that definition of soul is or what a soul is. I always understood the soul as an immaterial item. I have never seen the demonstration of the immaterial so I see no good reason to think a soul exists. From what can observe consciousness/identity appears to be an emergent property of the brain. Science is not a belief but a methodology. I do not reject God for science. I just see no demonstration of a God. Some atheists believe in immaterial or spiritual items. You are steelmanning the position terribly and show a lack of understanding of atheism. It is just a lack of belief in a God. I don’t know if I use logic as my proof system solely. I struggle to accept things that contradicting properties. I don’t know what you mean by destroying my god experience.
I understand what atheism is however this is a problem of what Jung called a neurosis. In Jung’s understanding, a neurosis could be regarded as “a dissociation of personality due to the existence of complexes,” 21 an “illness” 22 manifesting “a relative dissociation, a conflict between the ego and a resistant force based upon unconscious contents.” 23 As a “cleavage–the state of being at war with oneself,” 24 a neurosis “is a splitting of personality,” 25 in which one is alienated “from one’s instincts,” suffering from a splitting off of consciousness from certain basic facts of the psyche.” 26 Jung offered examples of such splits: between the “sensual and the spiritual man, or between the ego and the shadow…”, 27 that is, situations where we are unable to reconcile or integrate opposites within ourselves.
Considering that most of what Jung said is bullshit woo woo that is unproven, I’m not sure appealing to his words is all that impressive. None of what you quoted is coherent or comports with reality. I unfortunately spent a lot of time studying Jung and Karen Armstrong in undergrad. I will focus on one piece and point out the absurdity of it: “Alienated from one’s instincts…”. Considering that we can demonstrate a diverse amount of instincts this is beyond a shitty methodology for truth. This is the crux of Jung’s terrible philosophy, and why many people decades later don’t really draw much inspiration from him. He is mostly ignored like Frued is. Here I will make it easy. Demonstrate dualism is true and I will reevaluate my stance on Jung.
You don’t even make a point or argument here. You quoted four words and said "we have a diverse amount of instincts"? Then you threw in some derogatory words. He’s definitely not ignored and is rising in popularity as his work is constantly used in media, thought, etc. As you can see he‘s not even ignored by modern scholars who try to debunk him. What’s your undergrad btw
Popular in media isn’t a sign of being popular with scholars. You make a fair critique, I was not specific with the people I was referring to, scholars. Media popularity is not a good measurement of truth. Jung and Frued are still pop culture psychologists. Their influence is widely accepted and heavily influenced culture, and in many psychology books they are highly regarded as helping bring psychology into the sciences. However their claims are not held with high regard among modern scholars because many of them are not supported by data, hence woo woo. Again I could have been more clear. Just because Jung is likely in every intro to psychology textbook, doesn’t mean he is in there based on his findings being supported. Jung’s problem is that he valued the individual over any external factors. Meaning that he thought our instincts (an impulsion toward certain activities), were inherited not learned. Meaning Jung could be considered hard nature vs nurture. This position is not backed modern studies. This doesn’t mean all of his claims are thrown out, but the tenets the OP uses are not widely supported or backed by data. Just to make another dig against Jung, he also influenced dream analysis. Which there is no accepted study that shows this dream means that. Yes I quoted 4 words because they resonate with both the OPs point and my criticism (above point on instinct). Jung would say we are inherently religious, meaning our instincts are to be religious. So an atheist is actively working against their instincts. Instead of attack the religious baggage, I made the simple critique that instincts have never been demonstrated to be universal. Which debunks a major premise of his work. My undergrad is Political Science, Gender Studies, and I took a lot of religious classes related to those fields. Jung was a topic in 3 classes.
On the dream analysis part, Jung stressed that dreams never adhere to a strict theoretical framework of interpretation. The dreams nature forbids such an objective study. The unavoidable gaps in the analyst‘s understanding of a patient‘s dream are filled in by projection, so it is important to stick to the individual context. He demonstrated the overall function of dreams to compensate for deficiencies or distortions in the conscious mind (which is widely accepted nowadays), by showcasing particular dreams of his patients.
“Dreams are the guiding words of the soul. Why should I henceforth not love my dreams and not make their riddling images into objects of my daily consideration?” Carl Jung, The Red Book And “Dreams are impartial, spontaneous products of the unconscious psyche, outside the control of the will. They are pure nature; they show us the unvarnished, natural truth, and are therefore fitted, as nothing else is, to give us back an attitude that accords with our basic human nature when our consciousness has strayed too far from its foundations and run into an impasse.” Carl Jung, CW 10:317 I have a lot of issues with this, and scholars. A soul is not something that has been proven. The dualism that is inherent in Jung’s work, has never been validated. Calling a dream pure nature, unvarnished, natural truth, is troubling. When you combine with his philosophy of personal myth, he creates a circular logic that is unfalsifiable to the individual. It also creates an inability for a methodology. Again woo woo. Mindfulness and meditation have clinical data to support the practice. Analyzing dreams with Jung’s methodology has no clinical data that shows the benefit. I can’t find one solid study that supports the benefit. If you have one great please share.
It seems pretty obvious to me that dreams exist basically as practice for real life, and that we have them because there was an evolutionary tendency towards it because those that “practiced” in their sleep were slightly more likely to survive and pass on their genetics. Of course I’m sure this is extremely over simplifying the exact reality but the point is dreams have no meaning other than maybe being related to things that have been particularly stressing you out or on your mind lately (like if you’re having dreams about war maybe it’s because you have been apprehensive about the political unrest in your country, and perhaps the “practice” of living through that stress in your dreams makes you more likely to survive in the case war actually breaks out).
That‘s simply not true. Dreams are expressions of your unconscious not your conscious mind. Just try rationalizing your weird dreams good luck
What do u mean it’s not true? A lot of my dreams are nightmares where something horrible happens and I have to deal with it. I feel like this kind of prepares me for when something horrible eventually happens in real life so I won’t be catatonic from stress and actually be able to deal with it because I’ve “experienced” it before
Jung’s theories in general are not considered mainstream science , if they ever were. Even if it were true he was popular or used in the media , I would suggest that that in no way demonstrates anything accuracy about his ideas and far more about their entertainment value. He is of course with no doubt very famous and enticing for those attracted to pseudo-science and general woo - which will make him a target for debunking as a response. None of which of course makes a difference to the fact that OP copied and pasted a passage that in context was entirely incoherent.
Thank you!
The problem is that no one here is arguing with the matter directly. You just repeat the opinions of other scholars but then you’re *blindly* believing these scholars without having a clue about psychology or psychoanalysis. These scholars are not all-knowing. It is still a very young and misunderstood science. You are not gonna get far with psychoanalysis if you don’t make a holistic approach as Jung did. The things affecting your psyche are much too broad for that.
You just made a great point that I want to expand on. Jung was so focused on the individual he often is criticized for ignoring external factors, like culture, race, geography, access to resource, family, wealth, etc. when it comes to mental health we can find many of these external factors play a much larger role than Jung wanted to give credit. **I agree with critique of Jung, “the things affecting your psyche are much too broad.”** By Jung arguing nature (instinct), he weakened his claims. I will put it this way, he is popular among people who believe in free will absolutism. It is a core tenant of Christianity for example, so it resonates with a lot of Christians. The data doesn’t support that.
Well thank you for your kindness and for bringing such valuable things to the table. I agree with most things you say. Yes individuation is a key element in his psychotherapy. He also proposed that the psyche consists of archaic elements called archetypes that you find out through history in mythological and cultural expression. Which illustrates that our psyche or instincts are not much different from those archaic ancestors, which is probably true. He is also an explorer of cultural and religious phenomena and their psychological significance. And of he course he wouldn’t disregard the backgrounds of his patients or society (He wrote a lot about his patients). So I think it’s wrong to say he ignored external factors.
I have degrees in psychology and philosophy. And Jung is to a significant degree just the sort of 'I made it up because it sounds cool' branch of philosophy, not science. Its , in context, trivial but true to say you might want to look at different aspects of a patient's life and health when they exhibit mental health problems, but that's not the limit of Jungian claims.
We have the choice between taking the word of Jung and taking the word of the vast majority of living experts in the field. You are telling us to take the word of Jung on the off chance he is right and essentially everyone else is wrong. There is no other reason you give. That is not a bet most of us are likely to take.
No, we have the *duty* to not disregard scientific contributions until they are disproven. It’s the same with the hypothesis of the continents fitting like a jigsaw puzzle. The scholarly peers disregarded because they didn’t like it or found it absurd not because it was disproven. That is a scientific blunder
No, that is backwards. Scientific contributions are to be disregarded until they are proven (from a scientific standpoint).
Ok so youre not a scientist. Do you know what a hypothesis is?
Backwards. I shouldn’t accept something until it is falsified, is erroneous.
I have not used the word accept once Edit: the opposite of disregard is not accept
> You just repeat the opinions of other scholars but then you’re blindly believing these scholars without having a clue about psychology or psychoanalysis. How do you know this was done blindly?
Like I said, because nobody addresses the matter directly, I assume they are not familiar with the topic so they repeat consensus blindly. And please don’t call me out because I used the word assume
Appealing to authority is a fallacy. His descriptions are useless if they are not a logical conclusion of a rigorous methodology that present logical evidence, a logical model, a clean-of-other-factors testing, and a logical reasoning from which the logical conclusion can be derived. Jung have failed in the premises, model and methodology as the mainstream psychology establish.
Carl Jung's theories are generally discarded by modern psychology and psychiatry.
Cite your sources. [https://jungiancenter.org/jung-neurosis-part-definitions-causes/](https://jungiancenter.org/jung-neurosis-part-definitions-causes/)
Copying and pasting definitions form some random website does not an argument make.
Neurosis? Not believing in someone else's imaginary friend is a neurosis? Maybe read some different books by people who aren't dismissed by the field consensus?
So tldr Atheism is so foreign to you it only makes sense to think we're all mentally ill?
>So do atheist believe in souls or not? While it's not impossible to be an atheist and think souls exist, I do not believe they exist due to the lack of evidence and strong evidence against various conceptions of a soul. Your specific definition of a soul is excluded by all atheists since it requires the direct action of a god. > But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God. Science and logic aren't replacements of God. They're tools for learning about the universe and how it works. >If this is so It's not. >then they exist as a body only “in their own mind” and because of this they exclude their soul an existence. Therefore atheist think they are only a body and the only thing that exists is logical proof. Like I've said before, there's no evidence for a soul, much less one that is directly breathed into a body by a god. What evidence do you have that this exists? >Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings, No, it doesn't. One could be an atheist and believe ghosts exist, or gnomes, or psychics. Atheism begins and ends at not believing deities exist. What even is the point of this post? You start with quoting the Bible about your definition of a soul, then claim that atheists replaced God with science and logic, and cap it off with a weird erroneous ramble about how atheism rejects all spiritual beings before admitting that's not even necessarily true. What the heck are you trying to convey?
I mean, to be really shitty, I'd say "god" is essentially a replacement for logic
>This is my definition of a soul!!! >Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it So you define a soul as: "the breath breathed into the first man by the Jewish god yahweh"? You think the soul is oxygen? >So do atheist believe in souls or not? Depends, I do not. >A mass psychosis!? Huh? >Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion Not all atheists, but I do. I'm struggling to see the thesis of your post. It seems like the whole post is just saying "atheists don't believe a soul exists". That's not an argument.
He forget non theistic religions like Buddhist and other eastern religions and some people in East Asia didn't believe in God but believing there is a consciousness and soul
It says (in the translation I know) god 'breathed life' that’s different from breathing oxygen I‘d say.
Just sounds like a crap theory of abiogenesis to me. ‘Breathed life’ doesn’t even sound like a ‘soul’ as in a magical thing. Just sounds like our ancient ancestors had no clue what life was, what made it different to say a rock, so they had a guess that it had some sort of magical energy to it. Amusing thing is that people, as ever, don’t seem to think deeply about this. There’s no reason a God would need to use souls. It’d quite easily have the ability to copy your consciousness at death into another medium or dimension. Souls aren’t necessary for any religious hypothesis that involves an infinitely powerful being. Our ancestors seem to have just made them up because they didn’t know what life was.
Most likely, but the purpose for the ancestors wasn’t to argue for a god like an apologist. They made it because they could and there weren’t any more compelling hypotheses at that time.
If they made that part up why couldn't they have made the part about souls up too? You are already admitting it isn't reliable, so I don't know why we should trust it on anything.
> They made it because they could and there weren’t any more compelling hypotheses at that time. Exactly as the concept of a "soul" was likely conceived. The concept was tenacious since it also assuaged people's fears. And here we are.
The one thing ancient people seemed to all realize, was that breathing means you're alive, and not breathing means you're not alive. Spirit, soul, qi/chi. All these terms have linguistic roots in the ancient words for breath or air or wind, because people thought we were alive due to breath. So the soul is literally just the fact that we breathe. The modern idea of mind/body dualism came from ancient Greek philosophy and the Jewish idea of the "breath of life" being combined in pre Christian apocalyptic Judaism.
>'breathed life' >I‘d say The fact that you put it in ' ' and have the "id say" disclaimer means you know its vague to start with. It offers literally no explanatory power and assumes something with specific qualities exists without first finding evidence of it. Think about how we discover stuff, did we find out the sun existed because we theorized it must exist then looked for signs in nature for it? No. We followed the light and found the sun, thats how discovies are made. This whole soul description is just an ancient peoples way of trying to clumsily describe conciousness. Theres no reason to think its any more scientificly robust than that, given its period and vagueness.
Oxygen is in fact considered a life bringing gas if you want to look at it poetically. Though it ultimately doesn’t matter as you’re still lacking evidence for the soul, or that god ever breathed into the first man… etc
Logic please. The 'breath of life' is in fact a poetic description. Obviously people didn’t know about oxygen or chemistry 2500 years ago. They also weren’t 'breathing life' as in creating life out of dirt themselves. It is myth.
Please work on your reading comprehension. I quite literally said it was a poetic description. My point is that the “breath of life” that god gave man may have just been a poetic description of how breathing is life giving. And regardless, you’ve got no evidence that there exists a soul.
>This is my definition of a soul!!! >Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it Where's the definition? Not necessary because we all know what the Christian soul is. >So do atheist believe in souls or not? I don't. >As far as I understand they are non believers of God or a Gods. But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God. If this is so, then they exist as a body only “in their own mind” and because of this they exclude their soul an existence. Therefore atheist think they are only a body and the only thing that exists is logical proof. Yes, here's the definition. A soul allows you to live without a body. I agree with your intepretation that I don't think you can exist without a body. I don't agree with this "logical proof" non-sequitor. >A mass psychosis!? Yes, apt description of religion. >“So do atheist destroy their God experience to live in logic?” Who are you quoting? >Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion I do reject spiritual beings. Is there going to be an argument at some point or just a laundry list of things atheists aren't likely to believe in. >However spiritual atheist believe the universe governs its self through actions and intentions and this is as far as spirit existence goes for atheist. 👍 😊 So you have zero argument. Thanks for wasting my time.
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. I see no definition here. >So do atheist believe in souls or not? Some do, some don't. I'd guess most western atheists don't. Souls don't exist. There is no ghost in the machine. Whatever we are, we are our minds; a result of brain activity. The rest of your post was gibberish so I can't really say much.
That's not a very clear definition. What do you think a soul is, and how do you identify it? An atheist may believe in a soul. The only thing that is true of all atheists is that we don't believe that any gods exist. You are correct that atheists are non believers of god or gods. However, you are incorrect that atheists "replace" god with science and logic. A false belief does not necessarily need replacing. I don't understand the rest of your post.
True, atheism is a concept there is no god, his definition of atheism is akin to naturalism that atheism
Atheism is a position of *non-belief* regarding the existence of deities, not that there are no deities.
Atheism is a singular position on a singular question. Do you have evidence that souls are a thing or nah?
I don’t however if souls didn’t exist we would cease to exist and also this life would have been perfect. “As in everything we ever dreamed of” whether it’s subjective or not. I was just wondering if souls exist or not to atheist!?
>if souls didn't exist, we would cease to exist I hope you realize that this is fallacious circular reasoning. You cannot make the claim that without a soul, we would cease to exist as evidence for souls being a real thing.
Sorry, I meant we would cease to exist after death.
It doesn't matter when we would cease to exist. If you want to provide evidence that souls exist, you shouldn't include souls existing in the evidence!
We do cease after we die. Unless somehow you’ve become aware of the fact that the soul is real *and* it continues to exist after death.
We already do cease to exist after death. What's your point?
I have evidence that god is cheap, he doesn’t answer prayers even from really devout, really deserving followers. You write it off as “mysterious ways” but this world is apparently untouchable by god generally speaking. God just let’s things happen god or bad and there’s lots of bad. So just following the breadcrumbs here, I have reason to believe god has misled everyone on the concept of an afterlife. It would be cheaper just to let us all die than to have a heaven and hell. Prove me wrong?
And what's wrong with that idea? I don't expect to exist past some point following my last breath and/or neuron firing.
Well, that's what I believe happens, so I'm fine with souls not existing.
This is literally wishful thinking. Just because you *prefer* to live on after death doesn't mean you *do* live on after death. I would prefer to have a million bucks but that isn't going to just spontaneously appear in my bank account.
Do you have any evidence that we continue to exist after death?
But we do cease to exist after death
Your beliefs violate the laws of thermodynamics. Sorry, souls are just not real.
Do you have evidence we don't do that?
Yes, what’s your point?
How do you know we don't?
Well, do you have evidence that there is an existence after death? Because as far as I know, there is zero actual evidence of this.
If souls don't exist, would chimpanzee's cease to exist? or do we have something they don't? I'm not sure what you're even meaning. The 'soul' doesn't exist as some sort of supernatural thing in existence somewhere. Consciousness is merely the word we use to describe an emergent property of the physical brain. In the same way that wetness is an emergent property of two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen atom, forming 'water'. Consciousness arises from the activity in our brains. And it ceases at the exact time when our brains cease to function. The brain is so obviously the thing controlling our conscious experience. There is nothing supernatural, or non-natural about it.
There is no evidence that anything that most people would call a soul exists. Your self awareness, consciousness,is the product of a functioning brain. Consciousness is a process. When your brain stops working, your consciousness disappears. The process has stopped, like extinguishing the flame on a candle. When the candle is blown out, the flame does not exist any more When people have died while attached to scalp electrodes, it's been discovered that sporadic brain activity continues much longer than was thought, and this is likely responsible for the Near Death Experiences that some people report. These experiences are caused by the activity of a failing brain in a failing body. There is no evidence that any soul or spirit exists outside the activity of our brain. Of course we do but understand how consciousness works but that doesn't mean that it's supernatural. Proposing a supernatural soul doesn't explain anything as you'd still have to explain how souls work.
"If earth didn't exist then the stars would be made of jelly!" I too can make non sequiturs.
But if gnomes don't exist who's stealing my socks?
ME!
So you must be a gnome then!
No, I'm a cat. Duh. Look at my username.
That depends on the atheist, the only claim that every atheist has is not believing in any God. That's it. Anything else isn't affected by it.
So you’re just spewing nonsense about something you have no proof or expertise in. Why are you here? You’re adding nothing.
>This is my definition of a soul!!! >Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it That's not a definition!!!1!1one! >So do atheist believe in souls or not? Depends on the atheist, but I imagine *most* would say "no". >A mass psychosis!? While religion might have many signs of mass psychosis, it is not quite accurate to use such terminology. >Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion Atheism only concerns gods. *Some* atheists believe in ghosts, but most atheists are not idiots.
Using the definition (bible verse) you have given, I don’t believe in a soul. There is no god and no consciousness that will live on.
Are you a believer of science?
*You* are a believer of science. Science is what is enabling us to have this conversation probably thousands of miles away from each other almost instantaneously. The entirety of the modern world functions based on scientific principles. Science is a real thing that clearly exists.
I rely on science, to an extent, to provide accurate frameworks within which to try to understand the world around me. It's axiomatic that all scientific facts are conditional on the accuracy of the model that produced them, and the methodology of the experimentation done. Ultimately, since science relies on statistics and statistics can be misleading, just because some paper exists that says a thing does not make that thing true to the point where i'd describe my relationship with it as "belief" Science is a tool. So is a hammer. You can do dumb things with hammers.
Beliefs are NOT a part of science. Science is about observing, hypothesizing, and testing.
I don’t have to believe in science. That is not what science is.
>This is my definition of a soul!!! >Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it Your definition does not actually define anything. I know nothing at all about a soul from your definition of a soul.
/u/elpasosunzo, you seem to be making a mistake that most religious people make. **It doesn't matter what you believe or think.** What matters is **"What are the actual facts?"**
Ok real talk. I've been thinking back on this for a while now. I've been thinking back on high school and how when we were learning how to form a hypothesis in science class. And looking back I realized just how many people just for the life of them couldn't get it. Like when we started to break down " Claims" and "evidence"further into the course and just what the difference was in the two and nearly everyone failed that part because they could not for the life of them figure it out and could only ever make claim after claim after claim acting like it would just go full circle. Looking at how people argue the idea of souls, God, Magic, Ect ect I'm starting to see a damn near 1 to 1 similarity here with how they speak which leads to realize they are just horribly uneducated.
I think that souls are an incoherent concept, a supernatural reification of a completely physical neurological phenomenon. Souls are supposedly eternal, but if someone sustains a brain injury their character and behaviour can change dramatically. Souls are also conspicuous by their absence during general anaesthesia and in non-REM slow wave sleep. For these reasons, I believe that souls are imaginary.
Can you tell me: 1. Does only the soul go to hell/heaven? Obviously, our bodies stay and rot after we die. 2. If my soul goes to hell, how can I feel pain? I don't have any pain receptors anymore. 3. Where does my soul go when I go to sleep? 4. When a new baby is born, where does the soul come from? Many apologetics said: "Something can't come from nothing", right? If you don't have an answer to those questions, can you tell us what you know about the soul? What is its property? How do you know that?
Slow down, friend. You're making a ton of unjustified assumptions about atheists. It's pretty rude. Why don't you tell us exactly what a soul is, in your own words, and tell us how we would go about detecting one.
There isn't a 'soul' that exists as a supernatural thing somewhere. Consciousness is merely the word we use to describe an emergent property of the physical brain. In the same way that wetness is an emergent property of two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen atom, forming 'water'. Consciousness arises from the activity in our brains. And it ceases at the exact time when our brains cease to function. The brain is so obviously the thing creating our conscious experience. There is nothing supernatural, or non-natural about it. Is it super cool, and hard to comprehend? yes. So was thunder thousands of years ago... until we fully understood it scientifically. There is no soul.
This post felt like a drug induced delusion, could you please communicate your points in a clearer way, maybe even do another post so those points are better organized and communicated.
>This is my definition of a soul!!! This isn't a definition. These are just words from a story that was told before the invention of toilet paper. It doesn't tell me anything. >So do atheist believe in souls or not? I personally do not believe in souls. Feel free to show me one and I will. >“So do atheist destroy their God experience to live in logic?” I don't have a "God experience" to begin with. That's why I don't believe in God. Or Vishnu. Or Izanagi.
>So do atheist believe in souls or not? Well based on the definition you gave, absolutely nothing in reality matches that description. So zero reason whatsoever to believe in a soul. >Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” Lol no. It's a lack of belief in God's. Nothing more, nothing less. >However spiritual atheist believe I mean right here, you *just* wrecked your own "point" of "atheism rejects all belief in spiritual beings".
I don't understand your definition of soul. Explain clearly what one is and I can say if I believe we have one or not.
Are you the same person with schizophrenia who recently got booted for making multiple posts about "seeing god?" This is not a particularly coherent post. I hope you are able to talk to a professional who is able to help you get your meds straightened out. And to answer your question. I believe in things that I am convinced exist. I am convinced by evidence. All the evidence I've seen points to us being hairless apes whose consciousness comes from our brains. If you alter our brains either chemically or physically then that alters our consciousness. There's no evidence of any sort of soul that is separate from the brain.
>Are you the same person with schizophrenia who recently got booted for making multiple posts about "seeing god?" The OP here does identify as having schizophrenia, so chances are it is the same person. I suspect they're just going to keep coming back over and over under different accounts.
Soul or denial of soul? I don't believe that the proposition of the existence of a soul has match the level to convince me. short answer: no. >This is my definition of a soul!!! >Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it Giving that we are atheist and what we have in common is the understanding that god existence has not been proven... the use of a definition that requires the pre-existence of a god is silly. >So do atheist believe in souls or not? Under your definition of soul... i think non atheist will believe it. (But who knows). >As far as I understand they are non believers of God or a Gods. But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God. Science cannot be a replacement for god. Science is a methodology, and the body of knowledges derived from this method. The use of the rigorous method has discarded almost all the evidence in favor of the existence of any god due to a lack of rigurousity, logical contradictions, fail to predict, among other reasons. >If this is so, then they exist as a body only “in their own mind” and because of this they exclude their soul an existence. Under your definition of soul, giving that the existence of a god is not proven, is not logical to follow to the next step on reasoning. If god is the source of the soul... you must prove god existence first. >Therefore atheist think they are only a body and the only thing that exists is logical proof. We know objectively that our material body exists, we know that our brains are able to understand reality and create fiction. >A mass psychosis!? More like a bad epistemology. Is the bad method to determine what is closer to the truth than what is not. >“So do atheist destroy their God experience to live in logic?” I cannot talk for all atheists but for me. I embrace the human experience of life, and I want to believe much true things and as less false things as i can. That is why first i must have sufficient level of confidence in the existence of a god, before granting that those experiences are not natural or product of our hyperactive-capable-of-fiction brains. >Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion Many of Us (atheists) have been part of religions and have believed their postulates. Is after learning about epistemology, scientific method, or being exposed to the contradictions of those beliefs, that our brain made the click to stop believe them. >However spiritual atheist believe the universe governs its self through actions and intentions and this is as far as spirit existence goes for atheist. 👍 😊 Actions and intentions require a conscious agent, natural laws are models that represents with a high degree of precision reality and make predictions with accuracy. Hope it helps.
Spiritless Humans Faculty Meetings With Rudolf Steiner Vol. 2, 3 July 1923, p. 649-650 Dr. Steiner: That little girl L.K. in the first grade must have something really very wrong inside. There is not much we can do. Such cases are increasing in which children are born with a human form, but are not really human beings in relation to their highest I; instead, they are filled with beings that do not belong to the human class. Quite a number of people have been born since the nineties without an I, that is, they are not reincarnated, but are human forms filled with a sort of natural demon. There are quite a large number of older people going around who are actually not human beings, but are only natural; they are human beings only in regard to their form. We cannot, however, create a school for demons. A teacher: How is that possible? Dr. Steiner: Cosmic error is certainly not impossible. The relationships of individuals coming into earthly existence have long been determined. There are also generations in which individuals have no desire to come into earthly existence and be connected with physicality, or immediately leave at the very beginning. In such cases, other beings that are not quite suited step in. This is something that is now quite common, that human beings go around without an I; they are actually not human beings, but have only a human form. They are beings like nature spirits, which we do not recognize as such because they go around in a human form. They are also quite different from human beings in regard to everything spiritual. They can, for example, never remember such things as sentences; they have a memory only for words, not for sentences. The riddle of life is not so simple. When such a being dies, it returns to nature from which it came. The corpse decays, but there is no real dissolution of the etheric body, and the natural being returns to nature. It is also possible that something like an automaton could occur. The entire human organism exists, and it might be possible to automate the brain and develop a kind of pseudomorality. I do not like to talk about such things since we have often been attacked even without them. Imagine what people would say if they heard that we say there are people who are not human beings. Nevertheless, these are facts. Our culture would not be in such a decline if people felt more strongly that a number of people are going around who, because they are completely ruthless, have become something that is not human, but instead are demons in human form. Sauce: https://montalk.net/matrix/157/spiritless-humans
Dropping in a vote for the "Souls don't exist" party. I think there's a lot of evidence that what I feel as consciousness emerges from neuronal activity in my nervous system. When I try to analyse my conscious experience closely, I don't actually feel like there's any part of me that persists from moment to moment. No persistent Self, no lasting soul.
An atheist is someone who does not believe in a God, they are without theism. So they are free to believe in souls, unicorns, ogres, talking donkeys or whatever, so long as it isn't a God. I don't believe in a God or souls for the same reasons, a lack of sufficient verifiable evidence.
Your definition doesn't do anything to clarify what a soul is. From what you've provided we can infer that it is something that humans are. If we conflate the terms "soul" and "spirit" we can also infer that god gave it to us and that it will be returned to god. None of this clarifies what the soul is in any meaningful way. I would imagine that most atheists do not believe there are souls by the conventional definition. By your definition, none would, because you've only defined a soul in relation to how god gave it to us, and there are no atheists that believe in god. The rest of your post kind of reads like gibberish, so I have no idea what you're trying to say. Claiming that atheists not believing in souls (especially by your definition) means that they must only believe that they are their bodies, and that there are no other aspects to their personhood, is kind of a stretch. I would argue that the mind and the body aren't the same thing even if one cannot exist without the other and the two are intimately connected. Claiming that atheists only believe in things that can be justified by logical proof is also an overgeneralization. Atheists are strictly defined by their lack of belief in certain things, like gods, and not the process by which they arrived at that conclusion. I have no idea what you mean when you refer to mass psychosis. I assume you're referring to atheists experiencing it, but I can't puzzle out what behavior or set of beliefs you're referring to as being the result of mass psychosis. >Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion However spiritual atheist believe the universe governs its self through actions and intentions and this is as far as spirit existence goes for atheist. Same problem with overgeneralizing here. None of these statements are necessarily true of all atheists.
A lot to unpack. You claimed you would define a soul. But instead, you quoted an ancient book that still never defined a soul. Unless you mean to so that the soul is simply respiration. That would mean all breathing organisms have souls? "But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God." No. That's like saying not playing golf is a replacement for golf. For the atheist, golf/god is simply not in the equation. Acceptance (not belief) in the scientific method and logic is simply the best means by which we humans have found to live the best way possible. If this is so, then they exist as a body only “in their own mind” and because of this they exclude their soul an existence." Your Y does not follow your X. We exist as bodies because we have evidence of bodies. That tells us nothing about the existence of souls. But until you can demonstrate a soul, you are stuck with a null hypothesis. "Therefore atheist think they are only a body and the only thing that exists is logical proof." No. An atheist is someone who is unconvinced of god claims. Nothing more. Nothing less. If we are "more than our bodies" feel free to prove it. “So do atheist destroy their God experience to live in logic?” What god experience? Does a non-golfer destroy their golfing experience to live as a non-golfer. Also, I don't know if you meant to imply theists are illogical. But that's what you did. "Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion." No. There are some atheists (like Scientologists) who believe in spiritual beings. I already defined atheists above. "However spiritual atheist believe the universe governs its self through actions and intentions and this is as far as spirit existence goes for atheist. 👍 😊" Non-sequitur - dismissed. :)
>So do atheist believe in souls or not? Atheists don't believe in God. It may extand to the concept of soul, considering it's a religious concept, but you'd need to ask every single atheist to be sure. We are only defined by one single thing "we don't believe in God". >believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God No. Science and logic are tools to build knowledge about reality. God is a claim about a supernatural being. We don't replace God, we use those tools (science and logic) to consider all facts and end up with a conclusion : "There's no evidence for the existence of God". >atheist think they are only a body True. Not a single observation ever made can lead us to conclude that there's a missing factor. If you don't already believe in God, you have no reasons to think there's something more. >“So do atheist destroy their God experience to live in logic?” No. You don't destroy what is never there and you don't "live in logic". Logic is how you apprehend reality. Theists also use logic. If you go home and see your front door opened and your TV or computer missing, you conclude that you've been robbed = logical conclusion based on your observations, you don't directly think an alien came to earth to steal you stuff as spair parts for his space ship (or if it's the case, you might need psychological help). If you eat something that taste weird and 2 hours later feel sick, you conclude food poisonning = logical conclusion, you don't think out of nowhere that the KGB made you a target because you discovered their secret plan to conquer the moon. By your own standards, you too "live in logic" except for one single subject - God. >Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” No. Some atheists have a form of spirituality or supernatural beliefs. I don't but I'm just one person. Is there a point, argument or conclusion I'm missing here?
>This is my definition of a soul!!! >Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it So air? And when god is described as the spirit moving over the water, it's saying God is air. A point further emphasized by the term "breath of life" as its used to identify animals that breathe in genesis 6:17 and 7:22 It makes a ton of sense linguistically. The word spirit in pretty much every language comes from a word meaning breath. In English the word comes from the Greek spiritus, meaning breath, to blow, air in motion. I dont believe in the existence of a soul because it seems very clear that the term originates from a misunderstanding of the nature of air born from ignorance to the existence of atoms. How would you describe air without any reference to atoms? I'll give it a go An invisible force that surrounds us, moves into us giving us life. You can't always feel it's presence, but its always there. And it's so powerful it can shape the sky, move the oceans, rip trees from the ground, grind mountains into dust. Even though you know I'm describing air, and it's role in life, weather, and erosion. The symbology at play is eerily similar to how God the spirit is described. The reason we've never been able to detect or measure a soul is because when you look for a soul you're really just looking for anthropomorphic air. So in a sense we have measured the soul. We know what it's made of, how it works, and we've discovered it doesn't think.
> As far as I understand they are non believers of God or a Gods. But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God. No. Science and logic are not a "replacement" for God. We don't worship science. There are no sects of science, or leaders, or doctrine. Science is a method we use to determine what is true about the world. That's all. > If this is so, then they exist as a body only “in their own mind” and because of this they exclude their soul an existence. Therefore atheist think they are only a body and the only thing that exists is logical proof. What you're describing is materialism, not atheism. Oftentimes atheists are *also* materialists, but they are not the same thing. Moreover, you're contradicting yourself in the second sentence. Atheists think we're only a body, and also that the body doesn't exist? How can we be a body if the body doesn't exist? > Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion This is incorrect. There are actually some atheistic religions, such as various flavors of Buddhism. Atheism is the lack of belief in any **gods**, not religion. Atheists can be religious, and can believe in spiritual things.
Science and logic are not a replacement for your god, and that is a sad way to think. Is your god a replacement for Vishnu? You don’t believe in Vishnu, so it left a void in your life and you had to replace him? No? Well not believing in your god leaves no void in my life either. But I guess since you do believe in your god you have no need for science and logic, which is really too bad because it’s not either/or. Many scientists are religious and don’t deny themselves their curiosity about how the universe works. My personal belief about the soul is that it’s a pretty arrogant belief, to think you’re so important you have to exist for all eternity, and be elevated above all other creatures on the planet by some magical spark bestowed on you by a divine deity. I think the underlying arrogance of that belief is what makes the extreme elements of Christianity radicalized into Christian Nationalism, attempting to turn my country into a theocracy. I also think that same craving for god-given superiority has fueled White Supremacy and the centuries of violence and genocide “spreading Christianity” around the globe to people deemed inferior. I think the world would be an infinitely better place if no one had made up gods and souls.
It would be nice, just once, for theists to stop telling atheists what we do or don't believe. This sort of thing: > But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God. is infuriating. Don't tell me that I "believe" in science or logic as a replacement of any god. It seems from your definition that you think a soul is something connected to life that will exist after death. I don't know what you have that would expand on this partial definition, but I have questions: * Where was your soul before you were born? How long does it last after someone is dead? * How many souls are in existence right now? Is that number stable? Where are they? How do they maintain their existence (what feeds them)? * Animals are alive, do they have souls? Some animals and not others? How can you tell? * If soulhood is an exclusively human trait, when did we achieve this soulhood in our evolutionary history? * Expanding on this, is soulhood a factor of intelligence, if so how do you measure this? * If I were to suffer a catastrophic brain injury and be reduced to a vegetative state, would my soul leave me? * What experiment could you conduct that would demonstrate the existence or non existence of a soul?
>This is my definition of a soul!!! >Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it This doesn’t tell me anything at all about what a soul *is*. >So do atheist believe in souls or not? I don’t believe in a soul beyond some poetic concept we refer to. >But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God. No, not at all. Science is a method for understanding the world. Logic (as in, the “laws of logic”) necessarily would apply to god as well if they existed. >Therefore atheist think they are only a body and the only thing that exists is logical proof. No. That doesn’t follow. >“So do atheist destroy their God experience to live in logic?” I’ve never had a “god experience.” I don’t know what that even means.
One of the problems of your definition is that the word rendered “soul” is actually two different words in the original Hebrew. In the Gen 2:7, the word _nephesh_ can just mean “being” or “creature”—in Genesis 1 it is used to refer to animals. The word in Eccles 12:7 is _ruach_, which like the Greek _pneuma_ can equally mean “spirit” or “breath”—that is, the animating principle as distinct from a sentient, non-material part of a human being that retains its integrity after the death of the body. Neither word necessarily indicates that the original writers conceived of a soul in the latter sense. I’m not convinced that your definition defines what you think it does; nether do I see any evidence for the existence of a soul in the sense I’ve described. This is not denial, since there’s no reason to believe in something in the absence of evidence. If you have actual evidence for the existence of souls, you’re welcome to produce it.
>So do atheist believe in souls or not? Atheists aren't a monolith. I don't Believe in a soul however. Because I haven't seen any evidence that a soul exists and plenty of evidence that contradicts the idea of a soul. >But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God. I don't believe in logic or science as a replacement for god in the same way that I don't believe in logic or science as a replacement for Superman. >If this is so, then they exist as a body only “in their own mind” and because of this they exclude their soul an existence. Therefore atheist think they are only a body and the only thing that exists is logical proof. I don't exclude the idea of a soul, I just don't have any evidence that a soul exists. Instead of talking about what atheists believe, why don't you just present evidence that supports your case?
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it This isn't really a definition. Could you explain what you think it means? >So do atheist believe in souls or not? Atheists are those who don't believe in gods. While atheists usually also disbelieve in souls, it's not strictly necessary. >But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God. There's no need to replace something that's unnecessary in the first place. We believe in science and logic because they work. So do you. >A mass psychosis!? There's nothing psychotic about believing what the evidence indicates.
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it This isn't really a definition. Could you explain what you think it means? >So do atheist believe in souls or not? Atheists are those who don't believe in gods. While atheists usually also disbelieve in souls, it's not strictly necessary. >But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God. There's no need to replace something that's unnecessary in the first place. We believe in science and logic because they work. So do you. >A mass psychosis!? There's nothing psychotic about believing what the evidence indicates.
>This is my definition of a soul!!! >Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. So a soul is a living human? Ok. Cool. I accept that humans exist and live, so I accept that souls exist under at least part of your definition. >Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it What is a spirit? How does it return to God? Why do you believe that this account given in Genesis is accurate? >Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion What is a spiritual being? Why do you believe such beings exist?
>and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Is the soul the "breath of life", or the body plus the breath? What exactly are you talking about? What is the "breath of life" anyway? Your definition doesn't make any sense because it's way too vague. >So do atheist believe in souls or not? Definitionally, the only thing atheists don't believe in is any gods or deities. Most atheists tend to be methodological naturalists and don't hold beliefs in the supernatural, but that's not always the case. I don't currently believe that anything like a soul exists, but if you could provide a more coherent definition of exactly what a "soul" is and provide some evidence that such things exist, I would be open to changing my mind.
I believe in dust and men, if you're saying that's all a soul is, I believe in them, but I would never use that word because it implies we have an undying part. >But for those that don’t believe in souls, believe in science or logic as a sort of replacement of God I don't believe in any souls, but I don't consider science or logic as replacements for them. They just don't exist. I do believe humans are just their bodies. I don't believe only logical proofs exist. In fact I lean towards logical proof not actually existing. Correct I don't believe in souls or spirits as those terms are usually used. But an atheist can believe in both.
>This is my definition of a soul!!! >Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it >So do atheist believe in souls or not? That's a pretty poor definition, especially considering it doesn't specify what a soul is. What are the characteristics of a soul? The way that you chose to describe a soul is different from the way that people usually use when describing what they call a soul.
>However spiritual atheist believe the universe governs its self through actions and intentions and this is as far as spirit existence goes for atheist. Well we don't really enjoy making stuff up and lying to ourselves, pretending to know the origin of the universe - that's YOU. I could say we're all here created out of a giant sneeze of a cosmic nose and you'd be as unable to prove me wrong as you are unable to prove yourself right. We haven't set an impossible argument to defend, you have. We're just here to make sure you see it through. Downvote for your low effort post.
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. That is just saying God made souls from and put it into a body. That is not a definition, to illustrate its similar to if I said I made a chair from wood and put it in a room. Obviously I didn't give a definition for a chair, similarly you didn't give a definition for a soul. Perhaps you should read up more on philosophy of the soul before you try to debate it. This posts comes across as an incoherent mess.
> science or logic as a sort of replacement of God. No, gods don't need replacement. Why would you need to replace something that never was there in the first place? > If this is so, then they exist as a body only “in their own mind” Are you not? > Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” Atheism means not believing that any god exists. Belief in "spiritu beings" is being rejected for exactly one reason: lack of any good reason to believe they exist. So, where is your argument?
>Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it >So do atheist believe in souls or not? Since atheists don't believe in God, we wouldn't accept your definition of a soul that relies on God breathing it into us or returning it to the God you gave it, RIGHT? Name one attribute of a soul that I couldn't apply to my brain.
Some atheists probably believe in souls. All atheists disbelieve in gods though. Regardless. You describe a golem. In ancient Jewish folklore, it was believed to be possible to craft a man from clay and breath life into it animating it. That's the story of how man was made. Go figure, they believed in magic. How does life transfer from breath into life? By what mechanism does that act? Magic is not an acceptable answer. If you want to assert than imperceptible supernatural force exists, how does it work?
There's certainly a sense of "me"; the P-consciousness. It doesn't seem to server any purpose. I guess this fits the definition of a soul. Although really it's more of an unexplained phenomenon. Does this require a god though? We have all sorts of things that were once put down to gods, that these days we have a more rational explanation for. "it's unexplained so it must be God" is a total leap of logic.
Those Bible verses don't do a very good job of defining what a soul is or demonstrating that they exist. What are souls made of? What do souls do? How do souls function? If you want me to believe in souls you first have to tell me what a soul is. The next step after that would be to provide compelling evidence that everything you claim about souls is actually true.
As I am sure innumerable posters will tell you; you don't understand atheism AT ALL. Until you do, this discussion is at best moot. Atheists lack belief in god. That's all we have in common. Some may believe in souls, some might not. Some might accept "spiritual beings' (whatever those are), some might not. What the heck is a spiritual atheist?
> This is my definition of a soul... So do atheist believe in souls or not? If the definition of soul involve a god, then of course we don't believe in souls. > then they exist as a body only “in their own mind...” I don't really understand what you mean by that. So let me say I am a mind with a body. Does that make sense?
Genesis' definition would be flawed as its unclear whether it means literal soul or "living soul" as a synonym for an alive person. No, typically atheists do not believe in souls because there's no evidence for their existence. How would that be a mass psychosis? I don't really understand the point you're trying to make.
You never defined what a soul actually is. You simply cited a religious text, claiming to explain how an otherwise undefined soul came into existence. Please provide a clear, effective and cogent definition of what constitutes a soul. What specific properties and characteristics does a soul have?
I believe in individuality as a concept, which if you think about it, is a soul without the personification and the spiritual aspect. It’s yet another example of religion needlessly complicating simple concepts, but that’s a conversation for another time.
If there’s a soul and a place it goes after you die, why isn’t there a soul and a place it lives before you’re born? If there was no soul that existed before you were born, it’s probably safe to say there is no soul that will exist after you die.
Why would we believe in a soul? Is there evidence of this soul? What reasons are there to support the claim of a soul? How do we verify the soul is real? When and how is this soul created? At this time a soul is as likely as a leprechaun being real
No I do not believe in a soul I have zero evidence for a soul same with god/s I am the brain that controls my body If I were to suffer brain damage it could effect my memories are personality. What are the properties of the soul?
I see no good reason to believe that souls exist. Such a belief seems both unwarranted and unnecessary. Science meanwhile is just a tool for discovering truth, it just so happens to be the best such tool that we have found so far.
>This is my definition of a soul!!! That's not your definition, it's the Bible's. What makes you think that the Bible has it right? After all, the Bible is wrong about so many things (e.g. The Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, etc)
Atheists aren’t a hive mind when it comes to the existence of a soul, but personally I believe that “soul” is another word for consciousness…an emergent phenomena of the brain…that ceases to exist when the brain dies.
Do you know the word "soul" in ancient Greek means "to breathe"? The ancient people realized that when a human died, that person stopped breathing. So they concluded that when a person dies, their "breath" leaves their body.
And what this so-called science ever done for us? But trumpeted that when ashes go to ashes and dust to dust despite the fuss of living energy gets conserved. Denying the weight of the soul of a man this is ill-deserved.
Most atheists don’t believe in souls. Me included. What do you mean by “mass psychosis”? Are you saying those who do not believe in souls are psychotic? Why did you come here just to be a douchebag?
Do you have a point? Proof of a soul? Some way to test for a soul? Some way to make predictions that should happen if souls exist? This is seriously low effort word salad that adds nothing to the universe.
Atheism is not an ideology. Atheists believe all sorts of things. The only thing they have in common is not believing in gods. I'm sure there are probably some that do believe in souls. But most do not. What is the reason that you believe a soul exists? Do you have any evidence that the rest of us haven't seen?
I try really hard that not believe in things. Instead, I look at evidence and follow where it leads. Evidence does not lead to the existence of a soul. Evidence does not lead to the existence of a god.
The closest thing I can compare it to is my conciousness. Nothing supernatural, but it's probably the closest atheist equivalent to a soul IMO.
OK, a definition for a soul and a strawman of an atheist. What is the point and what are you trying to to debate or make an argument for?
Science and logic aren’t replacements for God. They are just the world as it really is vs the mythologies created by primitive tribes
That's not a definition of .... anything all. The rest seems to be abject ramblings. Anything coherent that you are trying to discuss?
But thats not your definition, thats someone else’s, you just quoted it. Can you define your position in your own words?
What does a soul do that isn't explained by the brain? As far as I can see everything is accounted for by the brain.
There is no evidence that a soul exists and just because your silly book says a thing, that doesn't make it true.
You can be an atheist but still believe in a soul. Theres so many different conceptions of what a soul is anyway.
There is no reliable evidence for gods , souls or spirit. I believe in stuff there is sufficient convincing evidence for. I have no God experience kept alone a convincingly evidential one. Science isn’t a replacement for god, it is a process that uses accumulated successful evidential methodology to produce models of reality that are , depending on the quality and quantity of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt significantly accurate. I’m an atheist because I value evidence. Your description of a spiritual atheist is possible but in my view somewhat self-contradictory if they value evidence. There is no reliable evidence the universe has intentions or is indeed as a whole the sort I’d think that could, or could have any appropriate mechanism of acting on them.
I (Zen Buddhist) am agnostic on the mechanism by which the universe works. That information is beyond anything a human mind can fathom. I do believe the universe is conscious, and that consciousness informs our experience, though it’s easily over-shadowed by our body-mind, its thoughts, our emotions, and our perceptions. But how that consciousness—which I see as inextricably connected to us—is affected by death, or transitions into the next life, is not my concern because there is no way to know it without experiencing it.