Pure Brutality

[Sheldon]

So where are we on any objective evidence that a soul or anything spiritual exists, or are even possible?

We are at the point of Bel trying to demonstrate how well versed he is in ancient philosophy, particularly near, far and middle eastern philosophy. We are at the point of Bel demonstrating his intellectual superiority to the intellectual paupers on this forum. We are at the point of Bel quoting ancient philosophers as authorites, and in case you think about rebutting any of that please consider: Bel is not presenting his own thoughts just "reporting" what Aristotle et al say, and is going to run and hide behind those "authorities" as soon as you bring forth justified criticism.
This is about Bel not souls, didnt you get it?

Ah, my middling ill-informed intellect didn't pick that up, all I managed to glean was a long winded and redundant explanation of the fact that words can have more than one meaning, and that their etymology means the original definitions usually differ wildly from what we currently understand them to mean. 

Perhaps he genuinely thought I didn't know this? Though I find that highly unlikely. He seems to enjoy spinning topics away from the specific, to broad and often irrelevant but trivially true assertions, while peppering them by name dropping of famous philosophers. 

Oddly this tactic is one often used by religious apologists to create a false equivalence, even famous apologists. I mean who hasn't seen the false equivalence fallacy "we all have / need faith"? That falsely equates two very different definitions of the word, here we see a similar form of semantic sophistry with the word soul. I mean in ancient Rome early christians were called atheists, though this fact is hardly relevant in debates about their beliefs now. Etymology whilst fascinating, is not always relevant. 

Some hippy claims that "god is the universe and everything" for example, and since they exist, by extension god exists, and act as if they have presented a sound argument for a deity, rather than a simple false equivalence fallacy using semantic sophistry. The fact some people define the soul as the human form and function had zero relevance to my post obviously, since I only included the word soul as it was in the dictionary definition of spiritual, which I posted for context. All of that was ignored of course.