Arguments against Soul

[EgoDeath]

You really seem to be looking for a fight here. Not sure why. After all, my beef is with Bel, not with you. I'm going to explain why he didn't answer my questions, but I doubt it'll get through to you. You seem hell bent on an argument with me.

Thank you in advance @Belaqua for letting me take liberties with your quoted material. If you’d rather I knock it off, just say the word and I will certainly respect that:

1. Do you believe that a soul exists? Why or why not?

The concept of soul as used by Aristotle makes sense to me, and requires nothing magic. If people use it in that way, it's a useful term. The modern "spirit energy" version isn't persuasive.

Saying that another person's definition makes sense to you means nothing about what you personally believe. One thing can make sense to you while you believe another thing. He didn't answer the question. Slippery.

2. What do you think the soul is, if it does indeed exist?

It is the form of the body, as opposed to its matter. In this case "form" means more than "shape." (A newly-dead body has the same shape, but not the form, in this sense, of a living body.) Form here means shape but also the functions, interactions, and operations. The things that the body does, by its nature. When the body dies, the matter is still there (at first) but the soul is gone, because it is no longer capable of doing human things.

The only thing spooky about soul, in this sense, is the Christian idea that at death the soul is transferred from its first, fleshly body into a different body, made of some different matter. And the Christians who assert this, if they're honest, recognize that this belief about the transfer of the soul is not at all provable, but only faith-based.

See my point above. He's just regurgitating information and not actually talking about what he thinks. If he is saying he doesn't know, then let him speak for himself and say that.

2a. Do you consider the soul to be an observable phenomenon? Why or why not?

It is not currently present, not detectable by electrical monitors, though it does depend throughout on a purely material world. If we could see a person's soul, we would see the entirety of what he or she is, does, has been, could be.

The view of the soul which assumes it is a wisp of material is in danger of treating people's real being as an object that can be measured and put in a jar. The classical view of the soul urges us to engage with the totality, extended to infinity, and respect that the person is far more than what can be measured.

If soul is no different than consciousness, why call it soul? If it is somehow different, if there is exactly some part of it that is undetectable, what is that part and how do we differentiate that from consciousness?

Once again, he's not really answering anything. Slippery.

2b. Or, even if it doesn't exist, how are you defining the concept in order to decide that it doesn't exist?

See answer to question 2., where Bel has defined the soul. Not sure why you asked this twice. So, I’m not sure what the problem is here. Is it that you don’t understand what he wrote?

They are two different questions. Not sure how you don't get that. Asking whether something exists, and then asking, if one doesn't believe it exists, what concept they specfically used to decide that, are different.

Maybe I could've worded it more clearly. Regardless, seems like a trivial thing to criticize. Once again, seems like you're just looking for a petty argument. Whoever you're mad at, it ain't me. I promise. Maybe your husband? IDK.

Then I’m not going to speak for him on the matter any further. He told me he was, but I’ll let him clear that up for himself.

Sounds like the enlightened one doesn't know what he thinks after all. What an intellectual.

He’s certainly welcome to his opinion of Dawkins. I know many atheists who don’t like the guy either.

I'm not a huge fan of Dawkins either. I liked The God Delusion, but it was a bit elementary for any atheist who's been thinking about these issues for some time. Regardless, it was fine.

But broadcasting unprovoked opinions about an atheist author just seems like an unwarranted jab. No one was even talking about the guy and Bel seemed overly harsh in his criticisms. You're right though, we're all entitled to our opinions.

Now, unless you have something new to add to this, I really don't see the point in continuing this back and forth. If you want to get your last little jabs in, be my guest. But unless something else gets added to this conversation, I think we're pretty much done here.

I mean, I know you have kids, but I didn't think Bel was one of 'em. Holy shit. Let Bel speak for himself there mommy. Pop your teet out of his mouth and let the boy fight his own battles. If you have some issue with me personally, I'd prefer you to just talk to me about it in a PM.