Exploring the Possibility of Human Souls

[zomgwtf]

It all started with someones comment about being SOL.
Then:

If there's a soul; you may find it's going to be stuck on a spit and toasted.

Better that there's no soul. No soul, no consequences.

I agree.

Ditto.

How many philosophies talk of souls in such a way? You can hardly try to say that you weren't discussing a specific religious idea of the soul.

I'll probably have to get a pre-owned Soul. Which is kind of a drag since it will come with someone else's sins.

{bolding mine}

Regardless I was specifically referring to this post. Pretty much conclusively discussing an old testament use of the word soul.

As for my comment, you had even quoted it and commented on it:

I've no idea why people are talking about specific religious forms of the soul in this thread... especially since this is supposed to a philosophy forum.

I know of no other kind.

I'm going to guess that the philosphy field has adopted the term soul to apply to some other setof criteria? That was kind of dumb.

{bolding mine again}

I guess that clears things up, I didn't say 'specific religious forms of the soul'. Maybe the problem is that I didn't refer to pretty specific old testament interpretations on the use of the word soul? I hardly felt that was necessary considering the discussion going on previously.

 

[Pythagorean]

I know of no other kind.

I'm going to guess that the philosphy field has adopted the term soul to apply to some other setof criteria? That was kind of dumb.

You pretty much have it backwards. Religion adopted the term from philosophy:

Plato, drawing on the words of his teacher Socrates, considered the soul as the essence of a person, being, that which decides how we behave. He considered this essence as an incorporeal, eternal occupant of our being. As bodies die the soul is continually reborn in subsequent bodies. The Platonic soul comprises three parts:

The first sentence is the most general definition applied to almost all uses of the word "soul" throughout history. It's based on an observation of phenomena (our sentience and ability to subjectively experience things). As zomgwtf alluded to, the soul is the difference between your lifeless body and your living body.

The next sentences are speculation about the soul, which is what religion has done. It's also what we're doing here in this thread. I, for instance, believe that the difference between being alive and dead is a matter of processes occurring between neural cells (I hope it's not too much of a stretch). I also believe the soul ceases to exist as a whole once a person dies.

 

[pallidin]

So, there is no current scientific evidence for a "soul"
Therefore it does not exist.

Are we really willing to exclaim that?

 

[Frame Dragger]

No you didn't.


No one was. Except you. Now.

Not true. "burning in hell" isn't in Judaism, or any of the proto-canaanite religions (Edit: and many more I'm not listing :END EDIT). Frankly, most religions are more concerned with sorting the exceptionally worthy from the rest, and "the rest" is recycled or sequestered by one means or another.

You can't talk about a soul attatched to a notion of eternal consequences unless you're talking about a particular religion, or at least thinking about one. The rest Pythagorean already clarified quite nicely!


@Pallidin: Some are, some aren't. Does it matter? It's more that as we DO discover scientific evidence which explains a process or behaviour, that was once only explicable through... well... a Local Hidden Variable theory.

 

[brainstorm]

First off, I don't think that materialist science has the capability of finding or measuring the existence of a soul using the frameworks available to it. Empiricism will always find other explanations for "soul."

Second, the irony of materialist science and empiricism is that neither are possible without a conscious observer. The consciousness of the observer is the point from which other other materialities are perceived, so to the extent that it is very interface of observation, consciousness is really the only thing that can be absolutely verified as existing.

So do you deny the material existence of souls because you can't find them empirically? Or do you recognize the absolute primacy of the soul in that nothing is observable except by means of consciousness?

Personally, I experience myself as a being inhabiting a body, so I describe the thing that inhabits my body as a "soul."

 

[Frame Dragger]

First off, I don't think that materialist science has the capability of finding or measuring the existence of a soul using the frameworks available to it. Empiricism will always find other explanations for "soul."

Second, the irony of materialist science and empiricism is that neither are possible without a conscious observer. The consciousness of the observer is the point from which other other materialities are perceived, so to the extent that it is very interface of observation, consciousness is really the only thing that can be absolutely verified as existing.

So do you deny the material existence of souls because you can't find them empirically? Or do you recognize the absolute primacy of the soul in that nothing is observable except by means of consciousness?

Personally, I experience myself as a being inhabiting a body, so I describe the thing that inhabits my body as a "soul."

I would call that your DMN, plus a frontal lobe. Are you the same person today that you were 10 years ago? What does it mean for a soul, or brain, to change and evolve? The notion of a soul as the unchanging ESSENCE of someone, is somewhat tarnished by equating it with consciousness.

If you're making that a semantic distinction, I clearly disagree. That said, you said "inhabits my body" which implies that you believe a body is a vessel for a soul, and all material and empirical observations hinge on there being someone to observe them in the first place. That to me is the straightforward definition of a soul, nothing divergent.

I don't know if a soul exists or not, but I would express my tendency in beliefs by saying, "I experience myself as being an individual, inseperable from my biology. I'm not inhabiting a body, I am my body. Damage my body and you damage ME; get an icepick through the old orbit and we CHANGE.

That's the point of divergence: When you give me an trans-orbital lobotomy (you know you want to lol) do you change my brain, my soul, or both? Is my soul expressed through my biology, and all you've done is interfere with the, um, medium so to speak, or have you also pithed my soul?

Of course, finally... when you die, is there an "everlasting" part of you, or do you consider "soul" to be ultimately synonymous with individual consciousness... which by the way opens a whole philosophical can of worms too. "Consciousness" not as absolutely verifiable as you might think, even putting Solopist aside.

I don't know, but I believe (much to my misery) that when our meat goes, that's it. I spend far too much time staring at imaging results and studies to believe that what I'm seeing requires a soul.

As you say however, if a soul is MYSTICAL, and/or purposeful (i.e. there's a REASON why it gets shoved into a body) then your logic might hold a la Douglas Adams. “'I refuse to prove that I exist,'” says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'"

 

[zomgwtf]

So, there is no current scientific evidence for a "soul"
Therefore it does not exist.

Are we really willing to exclaim that?

Er, Well in my opinion there is no scientific evidence and no logical reason given what scientific evidence we do have to assume we have a soul.

Yes I am willing to exclaim that. Yes I am comfortable with the fact that when I die, I'm dead.

The assumption of having a soul is the same type of assumption in saying that a God created the universe. It's unnecessary.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Er, Well in my opinion there is no scientific evidence and no logical reason given what scientific evidence we do have to assume we have a soul.

Yes I am willing to exclaim that. Yes I am comfortable with the fact that when I die, I'm dead.

The assumption of having a soul is the same type of assumption in saying that a God created the universe. It's unnecessary.

I believe as you do, but... I'm not comfortable with that. Might I ask how you've found that kind of... peace?

EDIT: to clarify, by "not comfortable" I mean, I'm not comfortable with dying and being nothing, not your statement of that.

 

[zomgwtf]

I believe as you do, but... I'm not comfortable with that. Might I ask how you've found that kind of... peace?

EDIT: to clarify, by "not comfortable" I mean, I'm not comfortable with dying and being nothing, not your statement of that.

Well, it just sort of came with the whole idea of death being the end. I mean like I don't particularly think of my life as very special or important at all. I mean like it IS special and important to me but on the grande scheme of things it's rather insignificant.
I was also not raised religiously really, I attended church with my mother when I was quite young but that was it. I studied religion on my own terms and found them to be useless to me. I was never raised thinking that when I die I go some place special, maybe that also had an impact on it.

Who knows all I know is that I don't really mine the thought. That's not the same as saying I don't respect my life and to prove I accept death as the end I'll kill myself, because that's not true at all. I really want to live out a full and hopefully great life and to help others in life and possibly even bring about new conscious life.

 

[Lacy33]

Many years ago I worked as a hospice nurse. I further studied at the time, the physical process of death from medical books.
Not that I can explain anything concretely. I can say I gained some insights by noting "life" "animation" "soul" in the the body and body without it.
Not sure I could do the same study today as it was a very strong study for the emotions.

 

[GreatEscapist]

The OP had clearly intended this to be a constructive discussion on the issue of the soul existence from a philosophical persepective. Not some free for all make sarcastic remarks about sins and going to hell.

Sarcasm is accepted, too. It makes things livelier.
And some post way back, a dude pointed out that a soul shouldn't be held responsible for biological crap. Isn't the whole point of a soul to guide the physical? To overcome human nature?
Isn't that like, the entire point of Jesus's ramblings on the soul? To fight the bad and overcome it? To escape death of your spirit?
Just saying.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Well, it just sort of came with the whole idea of death being the end. I mean like I don't particularly think of my life as very special or important at all. I mean like it IS special and important to me but on the grande scheme of things it's rather insignificant.
I was also not raised religiously really, I attended church with my mother when I was quite young but that was it. I studied religion on my own terms and found them to be useless to me. I was never raised thinking that when I die I go some place special, maybe that also had an impact on it.

Who knows all I know is that I don't really mine the thought. That's not the same as saying I don't respect my life and to prove I accept death as the end I'll kill myself, because that's not true at all. I really want to live out a full and hopefully great life and to help others in life and possibly even bring about new conscious life.

Interesting, I also was raised in a religiously neutral household. My mother took pains to raise me Jewish, but not with the faith or the belief, but the culture. I stuck with it until my Bar Mitvah, chanted my Torah and Hav-Torah portions, and have only returned to a temple for funerals, and weddings.

Like you, I was free to study, and I don't see my life as special (beyond, as you say, that it's special to ME lol). That being said, I find the concept of dissolution very difficult to accept. By no means do I want to hurry to my end, as you also point out...

I suppose I just wish the universe was a more comforting place. That said, I wouldn't trade my view of the world for peace of mind in a delusion. I want to be asking "How?" and "Why?" on my deathed... I just wish I could expect something more than the oblivion before my birth.

I believe that to be the case, but it is terrifying. We are very very odd animals, we humans. I'm afraid, because I love life, and an eternity of nothing seems a bit overwhelming.

EDIT: @GreatEscapist: Heh... I'm that "dude", and yeah, sarcasm definitely makes things lively, but it has to be in the context of some more content.
As for your view of the soul is very much what we find in Judeism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Bhuddism (and more), that the soul is the captain of the ship, the seat of who we fundamentally are beyond thoughts and desires. The thing is, a lot of religions look at that, and don't see a need to assign everyone a place in "eternity".

Take the Greek Mythology and all predecessors back to Sumeria) of Hades. Some really awful people end in Tartarus, and the truly valerous end in Elysium. Most get blaaaaaah, and fade away under a willow tree, if they make it across The River Styx at all. Norse mythology is similar, with the majority either ending in Hel's domain, or literally handpicked by Valkyries from the field of battle. Hinduism takes more of a "recycling" approach, but again, the notion isn't individual perfection, but perfection of spirit. It's pretty clear that it must have been one hell of a strong motivator, especially given short and brutal lives (by our standards). That said, these common themes are more about social engineering than anything else. Christianity is interesting in that it is so individually focused; EVERYONE has a place in heaven, or hell (or maybe limbo, which really seems hellish to ME), which is... odd in a different way. Ah well... no one ever claimed religion or mythology had to be rational.

 

[GreatEscapist]

The assumption of having a soul is the same type of assumption in saying that a God created the universe. It's unnecessary.

It is.
God was created for most people to be comforted, loved, and feel secured. That's necessary according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Whether you believe in it or not, it is necessary.

 

[Frame Dragger]

It is.
God was created for most people to be comforted, loved, and feel secured. That's necessary according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Whether you believe in it or not, it is necessary.

I believe he was saying that from a scientific point of view it is unecessary, not that humans didn't naturally gravitate towards some notion of comfort, justice, etc. To live day to day, we have a LOT of faith in the stability of our little world, or we literally lose our minds. Is it any wonder that such "circuitry" would not evolve alongside social structures?

So, yeah, you're right, and he is too. The cat is officially alive and dead.

That said, "necessary" isn't a qualified statement. "Tendency" is probably better lingo.

 

[Leptos]

God is the supreme alpha male.
The ultimate father figure.
The greatest leader.
etc.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Many years ago I worked as a hospice nurse. I further studied at the time, the physical process of death from medical books.
Not that I can explain anything concretely. I can say I gained some insights by noting "life" "animation" "soul" in the the body and body without it.
Not sure I could do the same study today as it was a very strong study for the emotions.

I would be interested to hear more of your experiences, here or in another thread. If not, I understand, but from my experience few people have seen death in the "slow motion" that a nurse does. Doctors, well, you know... too little time, and the nurses are the actual caretakers anyway.

I won't forget the first time I touched a cadaver... I never imagined that a body could be so utterly DEAD. I realize that sounds silly to most, but I suspect you know what I mean. You almost expect them to sit up and shake it off... and the stillness is the ultimate giveaway. I'm not saying that this makes me believe in a soul, but it's astonishing how empty a person is when they die.

As for the process of dying... and the result, while I suspect most people here have experienced the death of someone close, I find the experience of meeting someone I know is going to die (caring about them as a human with empathy, but not family etc) allows one to see death and the process of dying in a more objective light.

 

[zomgwtf]

It is.
God was created for most people to be comforted, loved, and feel secured. That's necessary according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Whether you believe in it or not, it is necessary.

Really? I wonder which religion created that god for that purpose.

Besides your comment doesn't even really address what I was saying, your talking about necessity of 'human needs' and I'm talking about logically necessary.

By the way even if I do assume that this god was created to 'love, comfort and help people feel secure' that is far from making it necessary according to Maslow's hierarchy. Believing in such a god is not the only way to achieve these things.

 

[Lacy33]

God is the supreme alpha male.
The ultimate father figure.
The greatest leader.
etc.

That is a mouthful. Are we all required to accept that or is that your personal feeling?

 

[zomgwtf]

God is the supreme alpha male.
The ultimate father figure.
The greatest leader.
etc.

My definition of god doesn't lead me to this conclusion not at all.

++Speaking of specific religious god(s) are against forum rules. You should leave the preaching out of the philosophy forums.

 

[Frame Dragger]

God is the supreme alpha male.
The ultimate father figure.
The greatest leader.
etc.

...Really? Amaterasu is going to be PISSED about this... along with a fair number of hundreds of pantheons. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is the supreme alpha male, but not all of them. Actually, I agree with Lewis Black about my particular heritage (Judaism): "The god of The 'Old' Testament... is a prick!" He's not so much "alpha" a just... really pissy.

Angels as described in the various bibles (not by modern twits selling TV shows and books) also reflect the "prick" nature of this fictional god.
Simon R. Green, a fun fantasy writer put these words into the mouth of his protagonist regarding angels:

"Forget all your usual notions about angels... All the usual images of angels as nice guys with wings, long nighties, and a harp fixation. Angels are God's enforces, his will made manifest in the world of men. The Spiritual equivalent of the SAS. When God wants a city destroyed, or the firstborn of a whole generation slaughtered, he sends an angel. When the Day of Judgement finally comes, and the world is brough to an end, it will be the angels who do all the dirty work..."

That is a pretty accurate reflection of MOST Judeo-Christian fundamentalism. If you believe that, then I can see how god is the ultimate alpha male, but I also could see that as somewhat pissy, and rather hands-off. I think it's a good reason to focus on the soul as a philosophical element, and not a religious one.

 

[Lacy33]

Oh that is rich Frame Dragger.
Not totally agreeing or following all of it. But that can be well said of a day seriously trying to chase a soul down the rabbit hole on a hospice unit.
There is an animating force in us. Your right though, don't know what family of pure study it would belong to.
I think it is complicated to keep us away from understanding it...now..., but simple enough for us to all get it at some point. What do you think?

 

[Frame Dragger]

Oh that is rich Frame Dragger.
Not totally agreeing or following all of it. But that can be well said of a day seriously trying to chase a soul down the rabbit hole on a hospice unit.
There is an animating force in us. Your right though, don't know what family of pure study it would belong to.
I think it is complicated to keep us away from understanding it...now..., but simple enough for us to all get it at some point. What do you think?

Truly I don't know. Intellectually I see no reason for a soul, or animating force, and recognize the psychology that underlies what you describe.

On the other hand I've seen what you describe, and know exactly what you mean. I don't know that people can ever separate that level of subjective experience from the objective reality enough to assess.

Then again, if there WERE a god, and faith was the point during one's life, then making sure that articles of faith are not verifiable or falsifiable is also logical.

So... I don't know! Perhaps that animating force is the sum-total of our complex biology, but then... it could be... well, you see how this line of thought goes. in a circle. I tend to end up eating my own tail when I think about these things, but one must keep the mind limber!

EDIT: By the way, I would just like to express my admiration for your previous occupation. Being a nurse is HARD, I know (from observation, not experience) and nursing the terminally ill presents so many challenges for all involved. Some things in this world are fundamentally kind, and I believe that giving a bit of yourself to comfort the dying is one of those things. Puppies are another, but really that's another thread. lol

 

[GreatEscapist]

Really? I wonder which religion created that god for that purpose.

Besides your comment doesn't even really address what I was saying, your talking about necessity of 'human needs' and I'm talking about logically necessary.

By the way even if I do assume that this god was created to 'love, comfort and help people feel secure' that is far from making it necessary according to Maslow's hierarchy. Believing in such a god is not the only way to achieve these things.

1. Certainly one of them.
2. Just a tangent.
3. I guess not. It was more of a thought, than absolute truth.
Back to what I was saying a loooong time ago, I don't think souls exist. How to explain some spiritual stuff that happens (i.e, death experiences, "ghosts", etc.), I don't know. But that's not important yet, because if I can't prove it very easily, it's probably not going to affect me very much in real life. Seems kinda stupid to live my life for my spiritual afterlife if there isn't a guarantee that there is one.

 

[Legion81]

Just curious on your opinions.
Do you think humans actually have souls, separate from their mind and body, or is it just part of a chemical process within our minds?
I personally believe that people have souls, but it's kinda confusing, because they can seem to be altered by drugs and perspectives, which would indicate that we don't really have souls, but complex brain functions.
Soooo...what do you think?

I don't think humans have souls. If a soul was real, then you would have all types of questions like what is a soul made of, where does it come from, how long does it exist, what attaches it to a body, etc.. If you accept that a soul is imaginary, then your life is on equal ground to the existence of a rock... meaningless (on the greater scale) and without the need of origin/destination (accept for big bang, origin of matter stuff). While the latter might be less pleasing to an individual, it seems to be the simplest answer to the soul question.

 

[Frame Dragger]

1. Certainly one of them.
2. Just a tangent.
3. I guess not. It was more of a thought, than absolute truth.
Back to what I was saying a loooong time ago, I don't think souls exist. How to explain some spiritual stuff that happens (i.e, death experiences, "ghosts", etc.), I don't know. But that's not important yet, because if I can't prove it very easily, it's probably not going to affect me very much in real life. Seems kinda stupid to live my life for my spiritual afterlife if there isn't a guarantee that there is one.

I agree, but wow that last sentence = "Take THAT Pascal's Wager!"

That said, I don't believe you were saying "kill and pillage and live it up", but rather that one shouldn't live in fear or dread of eternal punishment, or see life as merely a blip on the way to paradise.

Oh, as for explaining near-death, I can't say that it's perfectly explained, but apoptosis of neurons is one strong possibility, and the reality that "death" is only well defined in retrospect. Before you think I just lost my mind, I mean that when someone is alive, vs. DEAD, is not clear-cut. We have working definitions, and after a while they are valid.

Of course, we still don't know if the severed heads falling by the Guillotine were aware for a moment, if you catch my drift. The entire concept of "near" death, says it all! They were NEAR death, not dead! If they had died, they wouldn't be back. A kid who is hypothermic, and is revived after an hour+ of being down, has had what anyone in the popular media and public would call "Near Death" or "HE wa dead for an hour!"

Well no. When an organism dies, "things" happen at the cellular level, and there is no coming back from it. What a kid like that experienced is a kind of forced hibernation.

So, when someone starts to challenge me with "NDE's", I point out that approaching an event horizon without passing it still means you have no clue what lies beyond (be it nothing at all, or something.).

 

[MaitreyaB]

Could it be that we disagree not based on the existence of something, but based on how we define the word? I contend that a soul can exist or not exist, depending on how you want to define the term 'soul'. But then we will have to argue over the definition of what a word means. It's just a word, it really can't encompass the depth of existence. Is there anyone here comfortable with admitting things exist beyond their level of comprehension? How about accepting the answer might be that there is no answer?

"Save the theories for later, Watson, when we have some facts. You make theories first and you end up finding facts to suit your theories rather than theories to fit your facts"
-Sherlock Holmes

 

[zomgwtf]

I don't understand what people mean by 'animating' force on here.

Somehow the fact that when you see a dead person and they don't move that must imply that there is some other 'force' pulling strings behind the scenes and which has just decided to... idk bugger off?

When does this occur? When a patient is clincially dead? Legally dead? What about when a person is in a coma? In my mind it's a silly reason to make an assumption that there is a force behind 'animation' of a human body. In my mind it's all biological and chemical, no mystical force.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Could it be that we disagree not based on the existence of something, but based on how we define the word? I contend that a soul can exist or not exist, depending on how you want to define the term 'soul'. But then we will have to argue over the definition of what a word means. It's just a word, it really can't encompass the depth of existence. Is there anyone here comfortable with admitting things exist beyond their level of comprehension? How about accepting the answer might be that there is no answer?

"Save the theories for later, Watson, when we have some facts. You make theories first and you end up finding facts to suit your theories rather than theories to fit your facts"
-Sherlock Holmes

I think Pythagorean already gave an excellent defintion of "soul" rooted in the history of the term. I'd read back on this thread just to get up to speed. That said, I doubt you'll find ANY physicist that believes they can comprehend EVERYTHING. Then again, an argument that something is unfathomable, but exists, is a statement of faith, not really a philosophical principle as we've been working with them in this thread.

@zomgwtf: You would NEVER mistake someone in a coma for a corpse unless one simply doesn't pay attention. People move, shift, breath, smooth mucles work. It may be below the threshold of "noise" we screen day to day, but in a corpse the absence is astonishing. I'm not saying I have a problem with the intellectual concept of "dead vs. alive" and that there must be extra "strings", but rather that the IMPACT of seeing someone alive one moment, and dead the next... is arresting. Med schools are full of tough guys and gals, and a LOT of them have... issues... with Anatomy 101 when the cadaver is there.

We're human, we personalize, but the slap of meat that is a corpse is so divorced from even a comatose individual that again... arresting. I'm not saying it's a valid argument for a soul, just that I knew what Lacy meant. As for "animating force", as I said, it could very well be the sum total of our complex biology, not a soul. The experience of being close to someone as they die, being there before and after, but not being so close that your emotions are in utter turmoil... it's... singular. I wouldn't recommend it if you haven't experienced it yet... it is quite disturbing.

 

[zomgwtf]

It's just a word, it really can't encompass the depth of existence. Is there anyone here comfortable with admitting things exist beyond their level of comprehension? How about accepting the answer might be that there is no answer?

It already has a set definition so we don't need to argue about words. As well this just shows that it's false (for now I guess) and deserves no belief in it. The burden of proof is in those who attempt to SHOW its existence, not those that deny it.

This is best demonstrated by me saying that a giant green fire breathing dragon lives in my garage. He's a great hider though so whenever you enter the garage you can't see him, he's there though. Does that entitle any belief? Does it mean that the story is 'beyond our capabilities of understanding!' No, it does not. All it means is that the theory is worthless and unnecessary, just like that of a soul.

 

[MaitreyaB]

"It already has a set definition so we don't need to argue about words."

"I think Pythagorean already gave an excellent defintion of "soul" rooted in the history of the term."

This is a circular argument and a fallacy. It has a definition because it has a definition...

 

[GreatEscapist]

I don't understand what people mean by 'animating' force on here.

Well, you explained it pretty well.
And if all of that is explained by biological/chemical processes, I'm very impressed by the brain.
Then again, I guess souls would have to connect with the brain somehow. NDEs have to be processed and interpreted by the senses, and the brain has to connect a meaning with them.
Which would complicate the souls-exist theory.
EDIT: And major lol to the green fire-breathing dragon comment.

 

[Frame Dragger]

It already has a set definition so we don't need to argue about words. As well this just shows that it's false (for now I guess) and deserves no belief in it. The burden of proof is in those who attempt to SHOW its existence, not those that deny it.

This is best demonstrated by me saying that a giant green fire breathing dragon lives in my garage. He's a great hider though so whenever you enter the garage you can't see him, he's there though. Does that entitle any belief? Does it mean that the story is 'beyond our capabilities of understanding!' No, it does not. All it means is that the theory is worthless and unnecessary, just like that of a soul.

It means the theory isn't really a theory, just a hope or guess. You might have a pet dragon, as unlikely as I find the concept. Then again, there is quite a bit of evidence to support the notion that Dragon could never have existed, so my confidence is implicitly connected to my conviction that dragons are fictional. I am yet to see the proof (which as you say is indeed the burden of the 'prosecution') of a soul, but I'm yet to see related phenomena explained away as well as dragons.

So, I believe that the notion of god and souls is just a human artifact, like etchings on cave-walls, but how to refute it? KNOWING that a soul doesn't exist is an article of faith, much as believing that one does. Uncertainty and an open mind, protected by skepticism is really the wy to go in my opinion. Then again, we rarely choose what we believe, at least, at the conscious level.

 

[GreatEscapist]

Then again, we rarely choose what we believe, at least, at the conscious level.

We can change what we believe. At a very conscious level.

 

[zomgwtf]

"It already has a set definition so we don't need to argue about words."

"I think Pythagorean already gave an excellent defintion of "soul" rooted in the history of the term."

This is a circular argument and a fallacy. It has a definition because it has a definition...

Not that that was what either of us has said. It's not an argument, it's a fact.

 

[MaitreyaB]

Then again, we rarely choose what we believe, at least, at the conscious level.

If that's what you believe, you certainly make it happen.