Do humans have souls?

[fr0d0]

Gravity isn't a physical object, yet there is evidence of gravity.

I was asking for a definition of the soul to support your interpretation.

No, you wanted me to find a definition of a soul as a physical object. I never said a soul was a physical object, I said I wanted evidence ("show me a soul and I'll believe in a soul").

We can see physical objects, and we can see the effects of the non-physical (forces such as gravity). Whether the soul is physical or non-physical, it shouldn't matter. There still should be evidence.

Yes, I did want you to find a definition of soul as a physical object. I repeated that to Kyu ???

Lets be more precise then. Please find a definition of soul for me that has proof. The point is, there is no proof of soul. You set yourself impossible goals. I can't fathom how you don't see the futility in it.

Don't bang your head against a lamp post you may get brain damage.

I realise for athiests this is a safety blanket so you don't have to think about the problem.

---

What I asked Adrian was: Show me a description of the soul as a physical object

To which your answer is: "In many religions and parts of philosophy, the soul is the immaterial part of a person. It is usually thought to consist of one's thoughts and personality, and can be synonymous with the spirit, mind or self."

???

For the umpteenth time I have to ask, are you being deliberately obtuse?

If the soul is the seat of personality and emotion then it CANNOT be affected negatively or positively by changes in the body or, more specifically, the brain. The fact that changes to the brain (as a result of malfunction/damage) does affect (sometimes significantly) both personality and emotion means that the soul, if it exists, CANNOT be the seat of such things. Also, to claim that the soul is the seat of things that are very evidently affected by the biological malfunction IMPLICITLY states that the soul is physical or has a physical component. In other words your implied claim that the soul is immaterial or even real is just your usual rubbish/wishful thinking.

Try not to get too frustrated Kyu. I'll get to you.

Your logic isn't solid. Firstly, you're attaching quite a lot of weight in a definition from what you usually slate as an unreliable source. In this case, the secular wikipedia is hardly a good place to look for religious definition.

The soul is of course not as limited as your found definition. We could probe the subject into the night eeking out the finite definition, but I suspect that to be of no interest to you.

Suffice to say, please don't make sweeping statements as a conclusion of something that you've scratched the surface of. It makes you look foolish.

So, back to your question: "Can you show us anything that is pretty much universally agreed to exist for which there is no evidence?"

So taken in context, what I think you're asking is: As the soul isn't a physical object, can it exist? As I've said very many times now, spiritually perfect definitions require there to be no proof.

You have SHOWN nothing of the sort and any attempt to separate the soul (or your god) from the established rules of evidence and criticism is nothing more than SPECIAL PLEADING on your part.

Ooh - capital letters... *looks more closely*

By 'special pleading' you mean thinking outside the box, creativity, free thought - mustn't allow that now must we.

I repeat once more... you SERIOUSLY think that there is proof of God??

You may need proof, but I'm afraid it is a ridiculous pursuit, as I've shown. That you choose to remain obstinately narrow minded of the subject is your position. Until that position changes, a lot of the world isn't going to make sense to you.

In your eyes perhaps but then, since you routinely engage in wishful thinking and subsequent beliefs/claims that things of the imagination are real, your view is laughable.

I really don't know how you come up with this stuff. It makes me wonder if everything you say is equally unsubstantiated.

A lot of what world? The warped one you exist in or the one that I, as most science adherents, choose to believe (with reason) is inherently explainable and governed by physical laws that make sense? Thanks but no thanks ... I think I'll continue to inhabit the world of the rational.

It's nice and safe in that little box. Come back and see me when you're ready to come out and play in the real world.

EDIT: And if you look at the replies below you'll see that, whilst my style is uncompromising, they all say pretty much the same thing as I am. To claim that something needs no evidence is bad enough, to claim it can't have evidence is worse but to claim that the utter lack of evidence is not onloy expected but proof of such things is, to my mind (and I suspect of others here), self evidently ludicrous.

Well knock me over with a feather. Is this an atheist forum then???

Sadly for you, truth isn't a democracy. (atheist quote #898y34t527q)