souls

[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.