Arguments against Soul

[EgoDeath]

So what's a soul made of? How exactly does it work?

That we have poor attempts at explaining an imaginary phenomenon means very little. A real definition doesn't exist, boo-thang.

I see what you're trying to say though. You just happen to be wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

Great, I'm glad you can see what I'm trying to say. Since you can see that there are definitions for soul, many definitions - and since you disagree that those definitions describe something real, let's talk about that.

Do you think that every attribute granted to soul by those various definitions is imaginary, or do you think that some attributes are very real - simply misattributed to a "soul"?

Let's take two common descriptions. The animating force, the seat of identity. Are these things themselves imaginary, or just misattributed?

[Mister Agenda]

If I have a soul, I agree with a certain thinker who said it's made of millions of tiny robots. I probably don't have a soul in most senses of the word, but I like to think I have soul.

[EgoDeath]

It's very simple gae. We have a claim, not a working definition. The claim is that consciousness somehow continues after the death of the brain. A totally illogical and irrational claim.

We do not have a definition of how that phenomenon works. Sure, people throw around very vague words like "essence" and "energy" and "form," along with other non-specific nonsense. But there is no real definition of what a soul is supposed to be. Just vague attempts at trying to explain something that no one really understands. And that's my point, if no one really even understands it and we cannot even really explain it, there is no argument for soul. So there's no need to argue against it.

[tackattack]

@EgoDeath That shows you're arguing against the need to discuss a claims based on ethereal souls because those aren't defined well, and dismissing it off the cuff. What you're missing is that there are plenty of definitions of souls out there and Gae was pointing out your inability to see that there are definitions for soul, but your biases make claims "A real definition doesn't exist". Perhaps you should argue about a corporeal soul, or a Cartesian soul, or an anima... you blatantly ignoring the wealth of definitions is humorous though.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's very simple gae. We have a claim, not a working definition. The claim is that consciousness somehow continues after the death of the brain. A totally illogical and irrational claim.

We do not have a definition of how that phenomenon works. Sure, people throw around very vague words like "essence" and "energy" and "form," along with other non-specific nonsense. But there is no real definition of what a soul is supposed to be. Just vague attempts at trying to explain something that no one really understands. And that's my point, if no one really even understands it and we cannot even really explain it, there is no argument for soul. So there's no need to argue against it.

What something, in your estimation, are people trying to explain.  The thing they don't understand?  

What is the "it" you have in mind?

I can already see that the "it" is somehow tied to consciousness in your view. That's not necessarily the claim of soul - but it's certainly one of them. Is this the definition that you're objecting to?

[EgoDeath]

That's exactly the problem... what is it they're even trying to explain? This is why we cannot even begin to talk about it

---

Oh and if we're going to start changing the definition of "soul" to mean something acceptable to a rational mind then doesn't have to do with consciousness, then we're just being silly. Yes, obviously there are "definitions"... what I'm saying is that the definitions aren't sufficient, so I refuse to call it a definition. I'm not being so literal guys, and I'm pretty sure you both get that and are purposefully ignoring that to avoid the point you know I'm trying to make.

Let's just change the "definition" of god to mean something so vague that it could be anything

In the mean time, next time I go out to eat and the bill comes out to be $56.53 I'm just going to put a ten dollar bill on the table and say "Well, sorry Reds, that's MY definition of $60, no change necessary. Thanks for the meal."

[tackattack]

There are jewish apologists here that could talk to you about the storehouse in the seventh heaven of souls. Or perhaps they're more traditional and don't have a belief in the immortality of the soul. Some people on here probably have a neoplatonic psychological stance on a soul. I'm not sure if there are any Taoists on here to discuss their beliefs. Someone on here probably has an Aristollian (sp?) sensitive soul versus rational soul perspective. Then we can discuss theosophy and differences in soul and spirit. The point was that simply denying that definitions exist for whatever type you seem to want to argue against won't really increase your domain of competence because we all believe you can define a soul, but are refusing to acknowledge one exists, while indicating you do have some definition of what a type of soul could be.

[EgoDeath]

once again when we start to change the definitions of a word to fit to a different concept entirely we might as well not even use that word

if your definition of god is one that doesnt include a conscious divine being that created everything then you should just grow a pair of nuts or vagina lips (cuz pussies are tough too) and just use a different word.

Once again, loan me $500 and I'll pay you back with a crisp $10 bill. But don't worry, that's just my neoplatonic, postmodern definition of $500, so you'll be good to go, because you'll actually have made a profit. because my definition of making a profit is getting the same amount of money back that you spent. profit galore

[The Grand Nudger]

Okay, well...what's the $500 dollar word that you think whatever definition of soul you have in mind is trying to pass off as $10? There's a great convo to be had here, especially if you think that people trying to describe "soul" were actually trying (and failing) to quantify Some Other Thing™.