Indifference

I don't know if this topic has come up before, or even if it is worth replying to... But here goes anyway.

For the most part, we argue about the existence of God/gods. This is reasonable. If we disprove God/gods, we disprove Christianity/theism. But obviously this is difficult, if not impossible to do.

So what I'm curious about is the idea of a soul. Do any infidels have oppinions? Does the theist take this aspect for granted? Why don't I see more arguments for the existence of a soul?

With no soul, what is the relevance of Heaven and Hell? Wouldn't it be reasonable to demand that the theist prove the existence of a soul before he starts blathering about an afterlife?

Again, I appologize if this topic is old, but I haven't seen it.

Amos

The unknown element of your own life is contained in your soul. If you deny the unknown element you deny your own soul and if there is no unknown element there is no soul, in which case you will know who you are.

Samhain

Um, Amos...Errr...Nevermind.

As far as proving/disproving souls, it's still an element of the supernatural, subject to the same arguments against a god. Both shift the burden of proof into the unknowable, therefore this is the only reason why it is almost completely impossible to disprove, since logic, science, nature and what we understand of the universe no longer apply in either case. It's still the unknown of death, neither can truly seen to be disproven because both are not understandable from what humans know to be true in a naturalistic universe. Anything of the supernatural shifts the burden of proof and therefore it makes such an argument moot.

Indifference

I think what I was getting at was that we allow theists to jump straight to the final argument while there are still so many smaller presuppositions left untouched. Taken for granted. Before the theist can tell me about God, I think he should have to prove the soul, an afterlife, the validity of his text, his own credibility, etc...

Eudaimonist

That's a great argument for the subconscious mind, but not for an eternal component of human beings that survives biological death.

Samhain

Before any of this, I think the most important subject a theist must explain is a comprehensible definition of what they mean when they say "God". They must define their "creator" before moving on to anything else, failing that, the entire argument is moot.

Marduk

"So what I'm curious about is the idea of a soul. Do any infidels have oppinions? Does the theist take this aspect for granted? Why don't I see more arguments for the existence of a soul?"

I'm not a theist but I'll take a crack at it.
The soul is your personal 'program'. The Puppetmaster can download it whereever he likes, think holodeck on Star Trek, when your character dies, like a non essential crew member on Star Trek, The PM loads the program somewhere else, like the Heaven or Hell holodeck. The entire universe is a datastream in the Puppetmasters personal Gameboy, a 3D gameprogram where all the quarks are like pixels on a big 3D monitor, no real motion or time just pixels blinking on and off creating 'movement' etc. So when the Puppetmaster gets bored he can hit delete and write a new one. However, if you know the "magic words" ie. the programming code of the Matrix, you can altar the program yourself, like Merlin, make your own cool programs, foxy ladies or 'demons' to do your bidding and such.
This is how he pulled off the trick of making the world 6000 years ago looking like it was much older.


[ April 27, 2002: Message edited by: marduck ]</p>

Captain Pedantic

In my mind, the "soul" is the way to explain what does not have physical presence, such as thoughts, perceptions and beliefs.

Scientific discovery is continually evolving, but we still know so very little about the complexities of the human brain and mind - and it's a topic of such complication, that it's very difficult to explain. Well, I find it difficult to explain.

sullster

The soul is something that is glossed over and treated as a,"don't ask", issue for theists.

The interesting thing for me is how the soul has been taken away from some humans by the learned theologians over the centuries. The American aboriginals were considered as having no souls when it came time for the ministers and priests to approve their killings. Yet, these same people's souls had to be "saved" at times when those same learned ministers/priests felt it necessary.

Women did not have souls according to catholic medieval theology. They were considered the creation of the devil and souless. Later on, theologians found women's souls just like they found American Indian ones at times.

The whole christian illusion would unravel without the soul. The cruel horror of the centuries of human oppression brought about by the christian religion would not have happened without the hook of the soul. There are others who more schooled on the historical origin of this concept but I believe it was helped along by Greek philosophy which influenced christian theology.

Someday science will explain the brain chemistry which produces such an idea.

Koiyotnik

I remember reading somewhere that there was a study done on the weight of a body before death and after death. Somehow, the corpse was lighter than the living specimen, every time. If I remember correctly, it was a constant mass loss, too.

People concluded that this mass displacement was a result of the soul leaving the body.

Pure Hoogley-Boogley, of course, but it was interesting to read.

I just wish I could find that article. Sorry, guys.

By the way, Indifference, kudos on the "blathering" insertion.