souls

[Pandas United]

Well yes, of course. Arguments are based off of evidence and research. These aren't just senseless arguments based off of nothing. A positive and sound argument is indeed evidence for whatever you are arguing for (in this case, dualism).

Along with the couple highlighted in the wiki page there is the argument from introspection, argument from parapsychological phenomena, and the argument from disembodied existence. There are also arguments that go directly against materialism, but I think this is a healthy start. The wiki page gives a fair analysis of both sides of the coin. I also recommend Edward Feser's Philosophy of Mind. It is a great introduction to the different arguments from both sides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(p...or_Dualism

Seriously? Introspection, parapsychological phenomena and disembodied existence as sources of hard evidence? If those are your strongest suggestions I shudder to think who is on the second team.

But what I find cited most often by apologists are the logical implications of certain category words such as "the infinite". Take the cosmological argument. What really do we think we are in a position to assume about that which led up to (or could lead up to) a singularity. Nobody knows that and reasoning about the meaning of words people have made up seems like a poor way of determining the nature of reality. Words are tools not evidence.

Yes, seriously. Please don't come to such rash conclusions before you even read the arguments, it comes off as rather snobbish and arrogant. I've been studying philosophy of mind for the better part of this year and these arguments make a very positive case for why dualism is true. Non-physical mental states, if proven to be true, cause pretty gargantuan issues for atheists.

I'm not sure what your second paragraph has to do with the topic at hand. Weren't we talking about dualism?

[Whateverist]

Oh sorry if I widened my focus on you there. I wasn't thinking only of dualism. My second paragraph highlights my greatest misgivings with the way apologists reason generally.

[CapnAwesome]

So there is a soul that doesn't do anything noticeable but exists? Sounds a lot like not existing to me.

[purplepurpose]

Dead matter>soul(consciousness)? Or soul(consciousness)>dead matter? What is the source?

[Mystical]

What is personality then? How can newborn puppies each have their own unique personality? Just wondering.. Because it's in people too. Before the babies leave the womb they have an attitude.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

No.

As with every supernatural claim, there is no evidence to back up the assertion that a 'soul exists' aside anecdote and 'faith' in one.

As such, the claim that it exists can be rejected.

Actually, there are many good arguments for Cartesian dualism as well as several arguments against the materialistic approach to the mind.

I am not interested in arguments.

I am interested in evidence. As such, my contention holds.

[Savannahw]

What is personality then? How can newborn puppies each have their own unique personality? Just wondering.. Because it's in people too. Before the babies leave the womb they have an attitude.

I read a study that said between 25-75 percent of a persons personality was there at birth. The rest would be up to environment.

[Pandas United]

Actually, there are many good arguments for Cartesian dualism as well as several arguments against the materialistic approach to the mind.

I am not interested in arguments.

I am interested in evidence. As such, my contention holds.

You aren't interested in arguments? Oh, we should probably throw away neuroscience, several branches of philosophy like metaphysics and philosophy of mind, and we should probably throw away theoretical physics as well.

Arguments are based off of evidence, in case you didn't know. How do you try to portray something as true? You use rational arguments based off evidence from that respective field.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I am not interested in arguments.

I am interested in evidence. As such, my contention holds.

You aren't interested in arguments? Oh, we should probably throw away neuroscience, several branches of philosophy like metaphysics and philosophy of mind, and we should probably throw away theoretical physics as well.

Arguments are based off of evidence, in case you didn't know. How do you try to portray something as true? You use rational arguments based off evidence from that respective field.

Theoretical physics et al are based on theories as an extension of entrenched theoretical paradigms (both observed physically or mathematically) through a graduated evolution of paradigmatic themes within a given field.

The difference is there is nothing in which to base an assumption of a 'soul' on aside anecodote and the belief of the proponent. And, of course, the same type of fallacious reasoning we generally see peppered in tandem with such propositions (as above; fallacy of association, a sort of strawman as well whereby you insinuate that the aforementioned fallacy is a position that I hold).

My contention holds. There is no evidence for a 'soul'; it can be dismissed until such time evidence is forthcoming in which to base a coherent and justifiable argument on. Present some, or accept that your belief that a 'soul 'exists is based on just that; a belief.

Also, please bare in mind that I'm English, sarcasm is my second language.

[Rhizomorph13]

Hee hee:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDk1xRgHihA

This thread reminded me of this song. I really have nothing else to offer. Ok, I guess I could link to my own thread about souls back from when I believed in them:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-2037.html

Yeah, I think there is no evidence for souls. Dr. MacDougall had an interesting idea, but I would imagine it would be hard to get people to agree to be weighed while they die.