I agree with others, there is no reason to take the position that there is no soul, in a debate. Why take on the burden of proof, unnecessarily?
But, while we don't know everything about consciousness and the mind, we know enough to understand that there is no evidence for anything like a soul, nor is there any need for one.
But, the split brain patients you mention, are a pretty good argument against a soul.
Especially, this patient: One hemispher atheist, the other believer
Other problems for a soul:
Chimera's - in rare cases, one fetus in the womb will absorb the fetus of their potential twin. What happened to the other soul? Does the surviving twin have 2 souls? Did the deity recall the 2nd soul?
Molar pregnancy - cell becomes fertilized, then becomes a tumor. Again, what happened to the soul that entered at conception?
Fertilized eggs that do not implant before onset of menses - again, where did the soul go?
But, while we don't know everything about consciousness and the mind, we know enough to understand that there is no evidence for anything like a soul, nor is there any need for one.
But, the split brain patients you mention, are a pretty good argument against a soul.
Especially, this patient: One hemispher atheist, the other believer
Other problems for a soul:
Chimera's - in rare cases, one fetus in the womb will absorb the fetus of their potential twin. What happened to the other soul? Does the surviving twin have 2 souls? Did the deity recall the 2nd soul?
Molar pregnancy - cell becomes fertilized, then becomes a tumor. Again, what happened to the soul that entered at conception?
Fertilized eggs that do not implant before onset of menses - again, where did the soul go?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
