Let's keep it simple

[You]

I dont have all the wonderful intellectual terminology you guys do, but I’ll give my take on it anyhow

I don’t think there’s the slightest piece of evidence that there is an immortal soul. If we live on at all, it is in the genes and the memories of our offspring.

When we die out as a species, which I think we surely will, that, as they say, will be that!

That’s good enough for me

Sarah x

What sort of evidence?

 

[atheistgirl]

What sort of evidence?

Well theres not a shred of evidence for a thing called a ‘‘soul’’ that can be located in the body, nor any evidence of this leaving the body on death.
I would want to see this entity on an xray, and be able to track it’s progress after leaving the body, to believe in it.
Thats the sort of evidence I would need, personally speaking.

Sarah x

 

[You]

Well theres not a shred of evidence for a thing called a ‘‘soul’’ that can be located in the body, nor any evidence of this leaving the body on death.
I would want to see this entity on an xray, and be able to track it’s progress after leaving the body, to believe in it.
Thats the sort of evidence I would need, personally speaking.

Sarah x

The soul is you Sarah. It is the difference between a living Sarah and a corpse of Sarah and a living other person and a corpse of another person. It is both you uniquely and it is also alive, it animates your body, as they say. The proof of your soul is Sarah.

 

[atheistgirl]

The soul is you Sarah. It is the difference between a living Sarah and a corpse of Sarah and a living other person and a corpse of another person. It is both you uniquely and it is also alive, it animates your body, as they say. The proof of your soul is Sarah.

Erm, well, no. I dont quite agree. The proof of Sarah is my beating heart Im made up of my body and mind, and the combination of these two gives rise to a certain personality or spirit, that’s me - Im also alive in my kids
So in that sense, I agree when I die, that’s it, no more spirit or soul of Sarah Except what Ive managed to pass on to my kids
I will live on in their genes, and memory.
And they’ll pass that on to their kids, but after a few generations, there wont even be a memory of me … just the genetic material I passed on.
Still, it’s better than nothing

Sarah x

 

[You]

Erm, well, no. I dont quite agree. The proof of Sarah is my beating heart Im made up of my body and mind, and the combination of these two gives rise to a certain personality or spirit, that’s me - …
Sarah x

Well, thats it. Your soul is your own personality, unique spirit, its alive, & animates you. You’re not simply a zombie corpse with a beating heart, in fact your physical being makes up only a small part of your person in your own day to day life view of yourself.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Well, thats it. Your soul is your own personality, unique spirit, its alive, & animates you. You’re not simply a zombie corpse with a beating heart, in fact your physical being makes up only a small part of your person in your own day to day life view of yourself.

There’s something a little redundant in saying that one is animated by their soul. Animate is from the word anima(Latin) which among other things means “soul/spirit.” People used to think that things that moved “on their own” (like dust in the air) had a soul or spirit moving them. To be animated was to be moved by a soul.

 

[You]

There’s something a little redundant in saying that one is animated by their soul. Animate is from the word anima(Latin) which among other things means “soul/spirit.” People used to think that things that moved “on their own” (like dust in the air) had a soul or spirit moving them. To be animated was to be moved by a soul.

If I told you now that you were very animated, it could have a range of subtle meanings; it might mean you were very excited, very mad, very happy; but it will never mean you had a soul. Language is funny like that, I have to say soul animates the body or else I cannot say it at all.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If I told you now that you were very animated, it could have a range of subtle meanings; it might mean you were very excited, very mad, very happy; but it will never mean you had a soul. Language is funny like that, I have to say soul animates the body or else I cannot say it at all.

A relevant point is that souls have been posited for a range of objects and beings without having been supported by anything else other than our (human’s) ignorance of other explanations. I’m not arguing that humans don’t have souls but the long history of failure of the “it moves because it has a soul” explanation causes me to see it as questionable, circular, and redundant. But that takes us back to the original request of arguments for the existence of a soul.

 

[You]

A relevant point is that souls have been posited for a range of objects and beings without having been supported by anything else other than our (human’s) ignorance of other explanations. I’m not arguing that humans don’t have souls but the long history of failure of the “it moves because it has a soul” explanation causes me to see it as questionable, circular, and redundant. But that takes us back to the original request of arguments for the existence of a soul.

As I remember it things were divided between the animate and the inanimate, the living things and non-living things. The soul also constituted that property, value, substance or quality which gave |life| to an object. So that even plants and animals also have souls because they also possess life. I suppose that is all the soul is, it is life, but for humans and animals their life has also got personality as an almost intrinsic type quality, and for humans alone the |revealed| fact is that human souls with their individual personality are kept from non-existance after the death of the body because ‘they are worth more than many sparrows’.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

and for humans alone the |revealed| fact is that human souls with their individual personality are kept from non-existance after the death of the body because ‘they are worth more than many sparrows’.

That is restating the assertion that this thread is exploring . To copy-and-past from the first message:

“humans have an immortal soul”, how is this proposition resolved to be true or not? What method, what arguments can you bring up to show that this proposition is true or false?

You’ve said that this information is “revealed.” How does one achieve this revelation and how can this revelation be shown to be true?

 

[You]

That is restating the assertion that this thread is exploring . To copy-and-past from the first message:

Originally Posted by Spock
“humans have an immortal soul”, how is this proposition resolved to be true or not? What method, what arguments can you bring up to show that this proposition is true or false?

This revelation has already been achieved. It has become an historical fact. Your question is, really, why should I trust it. And possibly in a practical sense, how do I trust it.
These are questions for the individual, and the resolution will also be individual. As a suggestion for a starting point I would say that humans, historically, are predisposed to the idea of an afterlife which in turn demands an immortal soul. A living soul which has conquered death will not die again.
But how to show that this is true. As I said earlier, your only tools and instruments for the task are your heart and mind and as you cannot show me your thoughts and I cannot show you my thoughts, likewise the ‘truth’ of it for you will likely pertain to you personally and possibly exclusively.
At a practical level, they say prayer and study as if you want to know.

 

[StrawberryJam]

This revelation has already been achieved. It has become an historical fact. Your question is, really, why should I trust it. And possibly in a practical sense, how do I trust it.
These are questions for the individual, and the resolution will also be individual. As a suggestion for a starting point I would say that humans, historically, are predisposed to the idea of an afterlife which in turn demands an immortal soul. A living soul which has conquered death will not die again.
But how to show that this is true. As I said earlier, your only tools and instruments for the task are your heart and mind and as you cannot show me your thoughts and I cannot show you my thoughts, likewise the ‘truth’ of it for you will likely pertain to you personally and possibly exclusively.
At a practical level, they say prayer and study as if you want to know.

Trust in what you wish, but claiming you can know this rather than believe this is begging the question.

 

[You]

Trust in what you wish, but claiming you can know this rather than believe this is begging the question.

You can know it, is the point, but because of its nature, your certainty and assurance will always be seen by another as only belief.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Unfortunately the thread about “supernatural epistemology” died due to the usual plethora of irrelevant posts, I am proposing a simpler approach. I want to have this thread revolve around ONE question only. This question is: having a proposition “humans have an immortal soul”, how is this proposition resolved to be true or not? What method, what arguments can you bring up to show that this proposition is true or false?

I am not going to put up constraints to “limit” you in any way. Use whatever approach you want. It would be nice if someone could bring up an argument which would be convincing to an atheist, but I am not expecting such a favorable outcome.

Knowledge or proof of the soul goes hand in hand with knowledge or proof of God. It’s one of those “things” mentioned in Romans 1:20. It’s a knowledge that is manifest in men but that doesn’t mean that men can’t deny it or reject it.
If an atheist already rejects or denies God, they can just as easily reject or deny the soul.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Knowledge or proof of the soul goes hand in hand with knowledge or proof of God. It’s one of those “things” mentioned in Romans 1:20. It’s a knowledge that is manifest in men but that doesn’t mean that men can’t deny it or reject it.
If an atheist already rejects or denies God, they can just as easily reject or deny the soul.

What do you do when confronted with a person who tells you they have not denied it, or rejected it and still keep it as a possibility?
What do you do about the people who have given this a whole lot of time to think about?
Just keep giving them the same old?

 

[babylonsfalling]

What do you do when confronted with a person who tells you they have not denied it, or rejected it and still keep it as a possibility?
What do you do about the people who have given this a whole lot of time to think about?
Just keep giving them the same old?

Those types wouldn’t be atheists.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Those types wouldn’t be atheists.

In the interest of undistorted communication I think it’s better that the word “atheist” be avoided all together and that when discussion such things it’s better to go ahead and spell out the disposition of the person being discussed. To a lesser degree I think “theists” shouldn’t be used as much since it seems to be assumed by some to mean “Christian” when the term can include non-Christians including those from some of the monotheistic and polytheistic religions.

As illustrated in the thread “Question for Atheist” people use the word “Atheists” in entirely different ways all of which can be supported be a dictionary some where. The word is ambiguous by itself and is only useful when two people use the word to mean the same thing. One of the sources I looked at had pantheist, deist, any of the agnostic dispositions, and the apatheist all conflated under “atheists.”

 

[babylonsfalling]

In the interest of undistorted communication I think it’s better that the word “atheist” be avoided all together and that when discussion such things it’s better to go ahead and spell out the disposition of the person being discussed. To a lesser degree I think “theists” shouldn’t be used as much since it seems to be assumed by some to mean “Christian” when the term can include non-Christians including those from some of the monotheistic and polytheistic religions.

As illustrated in the thread “Question for Atheist” people use the word “Atheists” in entirely different ways all of which can be supported be a dictionary some where. The word is ambiguous by itself and is only useful when two people use the word to mean the same thing. One of the sources I looked at had pantheist, deist, any of the agnostic dispositions, and the apatheist all conflated under “atheists.”

Genuine atheism does seem to be a dying religion.
I can’t remember the last time I spoke to an “atheist” who could bring himself to say, “I believe there are no gods.”
They seem to seek the grey area more and more, which I’m all for, they aren’t all the way back to God, but they definitely are getting less distant.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Genuine atheism does seem to be a dying religion.
I can’t remember the last time I spoke to an “atheist” who could bring himself to say, “I believe there are no gods.”
They seem to seek the grey area more and more, which I’m all for, they aren’t all the way back to God, but they definitely are getting less distant.

Sounds like most of what you have encountered are what some call Agnostic Atheist. They don’t declare that there are no gods, but the don’t hold a belief that there are any. A person that declares there are no gods is sometimes called a “Strong Atheists” (which you called “Genuine Atheism”) and my encounters of such people have also been rare.

I think in giving the example of the behavior that describes the people you have encountered more effective communication has occurred; with that piece of information its easier to resolve what persona is being discussed than if only a label were shared since we don’t all use the same semantics for these terms.

 

[Hypnotoad]

Genuine atheism does seem to be a dying religion.
I can’t remember the last time I spoke to an “atheist” who could bring himself to say, “I believe there are no gods.”
They seem to seek the grey area more and more, which I’m all for, they aren’t all the way back to God, but they definitely are getting less distant.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Indifference is on the rise which is why we see less and less militant atheists and more agnostics.