What does the (hypothetical) soul take with it?

[You_remember]

its actions

[Ravenshire]

Anyway I can't believe what just happened there with my argument going down like a ton of bricks. How am I supposed to get anywhere if even Atheists will tear apart an Atheist argument before it has even been heard by the people it's aimed at?

The people it's aimed at are pretty thin on the ground 'round these parts...

[Brian37]

Actually, there was a time in which many Christians believed that their physical bodies would come with them to heaven. That is the reason the Christian church had such a problem with cremation.   The resurection of Jesus, and the bodies rising out of their graves when Jesus was cruxified are sited by those Christians for that belief.  In Corinthians Paul suggests otherwise.  These links lays out the arguments fairly well. Refiner's Fire  What the Bible Says





Nevertheless these are all good questions.  It's even harder to define it you think about it in terms of reincarnation rather than heaven.  Just what is this soul that's moving into new bodies?

Well the Buddha, to my knowledge, didn't believe in a soul at all and all that came later as religions sprang up from his teachings. Buddhism prior to all that is very logical and scientific, incredible for its day.

Anyway I can't believe what just happened there with my argument going down like a ton of bricks. How am I supposed to get anywhere if even Atheists will tear apart an Atheist argument before it has even been heard by the people it's aimed at?

More earthy and naturalistic yes, scientific, absolutely not. Buddhism was still not written as a science, it was written as inspiration, it was mental masturbation like all religions are. 

[Jenny A]

its actions

Interesting idea.  But still problematic when discussing dementia, depression, drug induced actions etc.

A number of forms of dementia not only include forgetfulness and incoherence but also violent actions and behaviors. To give you a concrete example, a woman moved across the country to help her father care for her mother who had dementia.  She provided meals, help with the bathroom, cleaning, and other care to her mother for four years.  Her mother looked at her one day; said, "You!"  And attacked her biting and kicking. The woman ended up in the hospital for a week.  On her return, her mother acted peacefully for several days before saying hesitantly, "I bit you didn't I?"  Then she cried for several hours on end and off and on for several days afterwords.  Then she forgot. Were the biting and kicking actions of the mother's soul?

[emjay]

Buddhism was 'logical and scientific' and 'incredible for its day' in what way?

I'd recommend the book "What The Buddha Taught" by Walpola Sri Rahula. In it it talks about what the Buddha, as a person, taught and there is nothing metaphysical about it. He comes across as an expert in psychology and the ideas make a lot of sense. If I were to follow any 'religion' that would be it but at that point in time it was not a religion, just the teachings of a wise man who never claimed to be anything other than that - he did not believe in any god nor claim to speak for any god.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

No-one disputes the fact that the physical body is left behind when a person dies and the soul goes into the afterlife, but what I would like to ask Christians is what of the person goes with the soul?

Actually everyone who is skeptical of unevidenced bullshit claims rejects the idea of a soul existing at all until it's been demonstrated to exist through verifyable evidence.

I'm sure the rest of your post was excellent, but unfortunately nobody read past the quoted text.

Edit: oh, you were playing devi's advocate. Well, in that case, lack of evidence for anything proposed Means no reasonable reason to espouse it.

[emjay]

Anyway I can't believe what just happened there with my argument going down like a ton of bricks. How am I supposed to get anywhere if even Atheists will tear apart an Atheist argument before it has even been heard by the people it's aimed at?

The people it's aimed at are pretty thin on the ground 'round these parts...

I know but I have seen a few threads started by Theists so they are lurking here somewhere

[FatAndFaithless]

Buddhism was 'logical and scientific' and 'incredible for its day' in what way?

I'd recommend the book "What The Buddha Taught" by Walpola Sri Rahula. In it it talks about what the Buddha, as a person, taught and there is nothing metaphysical about it. He comes across as an expert in psychology and the ideas make a lot of sense. If I were to follow any 'religion' that would be it but at that point in time it was not a religion, just the teachings of a wise man who never claimed to be anything other than that - he did not believe in any god nor claim to speak for any god.

I'm familiar with the stripped down meditative and contemplation-focused version of Buddhism (Four Noble Truths, Eight-Fold Path and all that), but I wouldn't call that anything 'scientific', nor especially astounding for its time. Additionally, if there's any hint of samsara or karma or anything like that, then any veneer of 'scientific' really goes out the window.

[Minimalist]

No-one disputes the fact that the physical body is left behind when a person dies and the soul goes into the afterlife,

Really?   Watch me.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Why do you care so much about disproving your own notions about what constitutes the soul?