[Blue_Nose]

This was exactly the topic of my "Atheist Debate" in the L X D forum...

If by "soul" you mean something supernatural that acts on our physical bodies, than no. I don't think there's anything inherently "special" about the reactions going on in our brains.

How exactly would that work? Philosophical arguments aside, why shouldn't we be able to observe some unknown phenomenon pushing buttons in our brains that can't be physically explained? Why is it limited to our brains? If a person suffers from nerve or brain damage, is that somehow cutting the link between the natural and supernatural? What's so special about brain cells that they're the only medium through which the "soul" can operate, and only under specific physical conditions?

From an evolution standpoint, how does a supernatural "soul" evolve from very natural processes? Or would one argue that animals have souls as well? Microbes, and all the way down to the self-replicating molecules that began life? What did all the souls do to occupy their time before then?

That being said, there's a lot to be determined regarding the details surrounding consciousness, and while there's no definitive answers yet, I've never experienced any outstanding evidence that the answer is supernatural in nature.

I don't see why there's any reason to believe the soul exists beyond the body, either. It's never been observed, and I'm perfectly happy with the notion that post-death will be just like pre-birth - that is, nothing at all.

[Thanos]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Thanos Thanos:

Most atheists usually have the guts to admit that saying "I don't know" doesn't make them weak or undermine their philosophical arguments. In terms of spirituality my own atheistic/agnostic opinion is that I'll never know whether or not the soul exists. I do not find the possibility that I do not have a soul, and that all I am ends forever when I die, particularly disturbing. If this is the way it is, then I look at it as something that is too large to ever "fix" so I don't see the need to waste valuable time and energy worrying about it. I'd say right now that enough anecdotal evidence exists (Celebrity Paranormal Project notwithstanding, of course ) which leads to at least a presumption that the soul does exits. I believe that the science of the future will eventually be able to either credibly prove or disprove this supposition. Not in my lifetime, or course, but hopefully someday.

I'm not a die-hard like Dawkins or Hitchens. My atheism isn't rooted in an almost pathological need to wholesale refute the existence of the soul. Rather, it's completely based on the disgust I feel towards religion as a whole. Religion has and has never had anything at all to do with genuine spirituality, but it has everything to do with political tyranny and the generation of sheer emotional terror within it's adherents solely as a mechanism for mass mind control. To me it's all sort of an apples-and-oranges argument with a whole bunch of stuff mixed up that cannot ever mesh or mix well together.

I agree--there's something of a religious zeal in Dawkins and Hitchens protestations. To paraphrase Billy Shakespeare: methinks they do protest too much. Hitchens is nothing but a professional provacateur anyways, so I don't usualyl attach much merit to what he says. But Dawkins is a career scietnists--he should know that the realm of the supernatural lies outside the bounds of science. Trying to prove God through logic completely obviates the need for "faith." Trying to disprove God using science is a fool's errand--you can't.

I'm a scientist, but I have no problem reconciling science and faith. My desire to do "good" may originate from God or from genetically programmed memes and genes passed on as per Darwin. It doesn't change the fact that I have an innate sense oif what is good and a desire to strive for something more than what I am.

I regard as rather retarded the baseless argument from the religious that one needs to be religious in order to be truly good. The overwhelming evidence from history is that religion is most often in direct opposition to good anyway. The aforementioned Hitchens (on his book tour for "god is not Great" was frequently quoting another atheist author who put it this way: a good person will naturally do good, an evil person will naturally do evil, but to make a good person go against their own nature and commit evil all you have to do is give him religion. Empirically, with the weight of history behind it, I find this conclusion as having been convincingly proven. This is at least a logical conclusion when compared to the sheer malignant idiocy of those who promote anti-historical stupidity (for example) along the lines that no goodness or morality existed in human before the (alleged) "Revealed Truth" of Christ came along.

The greater problem which will probably never be solved (to once agin refer to Hitchens), is that humans appear to be naturally theotropic, i.e. individually and collectively we're hardwired to fall for religion and to listen to the charismatic politicians who have the apparent mutant ability to endlessly exploit this tendency. It'll probably take another 100 million years of evolution for this unfortunate trait to disappear. Our monkey brains will probably have to begin using at least 50% of their capacity/potential, instead of the current 10%, before we're successfully able to put away religion forever as the dangerously childish absurdity that it essentially is.

[Tricks]

camerontech camerontech:

a soul is your spirit, your character, your morals. I don't think it's something physical. it's who you are, you can't sell it and you can't deny it.

I agree.

[Thanos]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

This was exactly the topic of my "Atheist Debate" in the L X D forum...

If by "soul" you mean something supernatural that acts on our physical bodies, than no. I don't think there's anything inherently "special" about the reactions going on in our brains.

How exactly would that work? Philosophical arguments aside, why shouldn't we be able to observe some unknown phenomenon pushing buttons in our brains that can't be physically explained? Why is it limited to our brains? If a person suffers from nerve or brain damage, is that somehow cutting the link between the natural and supernatural? What's so special about brain cells that they're the only medium through which the "soul" can operate, and only under specific physical conditions?

From an evolution standpoint, how does a supernatural "soul" evolve from very natural processes? Or would one argue that animals have souls as well? Microbes, and all the way down to the self-replicating molecules that began life? What did all the souls do to occupy their time before then?

That being said, there's a lot to be determined regarding the details surrounding consciousness, and while there's no definitive answers yet, I've never experienced any outstanding evidence that the answer is supernatural in nature.

I don't see why there's any reason to believe the soul exists beyond the body, either. It's never been observed, and I'm perfectly happy with the notion that post-death will be just like pre-birth - that is, nothing at all.

I regard "supernatural" is merely that which has not yet been scientifically proven. To me it's no different from people in primitive times regarding volcanic eruptions or lightning storms as being divinely or supernaturally inspired. Today we know better. I remain confident enough in science to believe that one day, although I won't be around to see it happen, what is supernatural today will be shown to be perfectly natural and rationally explainable.

The contemporary battle remains today as it did back when the Enlightenment first began: to logically explain what was erroneously thought of as supernatural in order to remove these once-unknowable things as weapons from the hands of those who exploit them for their own sinister purposes.

[Elvis]

Well in my humble opinion the answer is no

Because once you accept the possibility of the supernatural, in this case a soul, where do you draw the line?

It's that's simple to me

[Blue_Nose]

Thanos Thanos:

I regard "supernatural" is merely that which has not yet been scientifically proven. To me it's no different from people in primitive times regarding volcanic eruptions or lightning storms as being divinely or supernaturally inspired. Today we know better. I remain confident enough in science to believe that one day, although I won't be around to see it happen, what is supernatural today will be shown to be perfectly natural and rationally explainable.

Supernatural is the quality of being 'beyond' nature. While most things that are considered supernatural are, in fact, natural, that doesn't change the definition of supernatural.

Since the notion of a 'soul' is inherently defined as being supernatural (as opposed to some observed natural phenomenon being misinterpretted as supernatural), I don't see any reason to presume it has any natural basis.

[romanP]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

This was exactly the topic of my "Atheist Debate" in the L X D forum...

If by "soul" you mean something supernatural that acts on our physical bodies, than no. I don't think there's anything inherently "special" about the reactions going on in our brains.

How exactly would that work?

That's just the thing. We don't really know. Roger Penrose has written a number of books on the subject of artificial intelligence and the questions we need to ask in order to understand exactly what a mind is and how consciousness works, and these are questions we need to fully understand before we can begin to really build true artificial intelligence.

$1:

Philosophical arguments aside, why shouldn't we be able to observe some unknown phenomenon pushing buttons in our brains that can't be physically explained?

Well, that's another problem. You can't observe something if you don't know about its existence, but in the act of observing something you may have caused it to exist. So it's hard to really know if anything exists without it first being observed.

$1:

Why is it limited to our brains? If a person suffers from nerve or brain damage, is that somehow cutting the link between the natural and supernatural?

First, I think we have to throw out all ideas of what's natural or supernatural, because there are a lot of very strange things that happen at the sub-atomic level that don't happen on our plane of existence. For instance, electrons can appear to be in two places at the same time, but it's hard to tell whether the electron was already doing that or if it happened because we observed it happening, because you can only measure an electron's position or its speed, but not both at the same time.

$1:

What's so special about brain cells that they're the only medium through which the "soul" can operate, and only under specific physical conditions?

The brain isn't the only medium, since it interacts with everything around it. You're just an antenna and feedback mechanism for those interactions. Other bits of matter like trees and rocks might do the same things, they just don't do them as well as we do.

$1:

From an evolution standpoint, how does a supernatural "soul" evolve from very natural processes? Or would one argue that animals have souls as well? Microbes, and all the way down to the self-replicating molecules that began life? What did all the souls do to occupy their time before then?

There's a lot we still don't know. For instance, how those self-replicating molecules came into existence. We may have to update the periodic table of elements, or just scrap it and start with a whole new idea about elements altogether. At least, that's what I think.

$1:

That being said, there's a lot to be determined regarding the details surrounding consciousness, and while there's no definitive answers yet, I've never experienced any outstanding evidence that the answer is supernatural in nature.

I don't think anything that exists outside of human constructs is supernatural. There are only unanswered questions. As Douglas Adams once wrote, if anyone were to solve the universe, it would probably be destroyed and immediately be replaced by something even more mysterious. It seems that the more we find out about physics, the more we discover this is true.

$1:

I don't see why there's any reason to believe the soul exists beyond the body, either. It's never been observed, and I'm perfectly happy with the notion that post-death will be just like pre-birth - that is, nothing at all.

My concept of a soul is consciousness that can somehow survive the body. When we think, learn and create memories, there is a lot of information that has to be stored, and over the course of a lifetime that amount of information is astronomical, so I find it just a little bit hard to believe that some part of that existence doesn't somehow remain intact after we die. That information has to go somewhere, if our current understanding is that nothing can be created or destroyed.

[ShepherdsDog]

why does it have to be supernatural. Doesn't energy animate us? Isn't energy natural and aren't there laws that cover the conservation of energy and matter? We lack the ability to measure a 'soul' now, but a hundred years ago were we able to split atoms or fully understand that the atom wasn't the smallest particle in creation? Dark Energy and Dark matter are all theoretical, yet the scientific community accepts them willingly enough.

[Elvis]

@ romanP

I see what your trying to implies by trying to mix up the definition of what is natural and supernatural. But your premise is false.

I'll explain, Even if we don't quite understand the motion of the electron at the quantum level WE can SEE it's effect on matter and we can replicate the circonstance in which we have observe those effect. therefore it's not magic it's just a natural phenomenon. We cannot see the effect of a soul on matter an of course we cannot replicate the experiment?? therefore soul juste don't exist.

I admit that it would be nice if soul existed and that we could exist for ever in an another plane of existence. But it is not enough to wish it to make so.

[romanP]

Thanos Thanos:

I regard as rather retarded the baseless argument from the religious that one needs to be religious in order to be truly good. The overwhelming evidence from history is that religion is most often in direct opposition to good anyway. The aforementioned Hitchens (on his book tour for "god is not Great" was frequently quoting another atheist author who put it this way: a good person will naturally do good, an evil person will naturally do evil, but to make a good person go against their own nature and commit evil all you have to do is give him religion.

I think that, coming from a atheist, this is all just part of another Belief System, and one should never put too much stock into anyone's BS, including their own. To suggest that people who have religious faith are evil suggests that this so-called atheist isn't much of one, because they still give credit to "supernatural" ideas such as "good" and "evil", which are supposedly given to us by the very god they claim to not believe in.

$1:

Empirically, with the weight of history behind it, I find this conclusion as having been convincingly proven.

That would be a highly ignorant thing to say, given this opinion only usually covers Judaeo-Christian beliefs and, even then, only those who have held high positions of power. You probably won't hear about too many Jainists causing outbreaks of violence, because every single aspect of that set of beliefs demands non-violence.

It would be more accurate to say that religion in the hands of powerful people can be a dangerous weapon.

$1:

This is at least a logical conclusion when compared to the sheer malignant idiocy of those who promote anti-historical stupidity (for example) along the lines that no goodness or morality existed in human before the (alleged) "Revealed Truth" of Christ came along.

Proving my point that this has little to do with religion being an evil thing, and much more to do with people in positions of power abusing their influence by twisting religion. The average person would probably never believe any such thing if a person with any kind of power had never put that kind of idea into their head, whether they were the most devout christian or the most unwavering atheist.

If you need proof, just look at the kind of nonsense people around here spout because of what they read on the internet or saw on so-called TV news. They're not alone, there are lots of other people like them. You don't need religion to hold beliefs in false ideas. All you need is the power of convincing, and the means to convince. Magicians know this, but when it comes to the people who write opinion columns, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

[romanP]

camerontech camerontech:

a soul is your spirit, your character, your morals. I don't think it's something physical. it's who you are, you can't sell it and you can't deny it.

These are physical things. They are a part of your nervous system. When measuring the universe, you always have to take your own nervous system into account.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

We cannot see the effect of a soul on matter an of course we cannot replicate the experiment?? therefore soul juste don't exist.

When the energy that animates us ceases we die. I'd say death is a pretty measureable effect. Does this energy merely dissipate like some static discharge or is there some cohesion after it leaves the body? Do we currently have a tool capable of measuring conciousness?

[Blue_Nose]

romanP romanP:

Well, that's another problem. You can't observe something if you don't know about its existence, but in the act of observing something you may have caused it to exist. So it's hard to really know if anything exists without it first being observed.

New phenomenon can certainly be observed with no prior knowledge - how on earth do you propose any knowledge is acquired if nothing unknown can be observed?

romanP romanP:

First, I think we have to throw out all ideas of what's natural or supernatural, because there are a lot of very strange things that happen at the sub-atomic level that don't happen on our plane of existence. For instance, electrons can appear to be in two places at the same time, but it's hard to tell whether the electron was already doing that or if it happened because we observed it happening, because you can only measure an electron's position or its speed, but not both at the same time.

So? Relevance to the topic?

Supernatural is defined as the quality of existing beyond the natural. Stop trying to reinvent words, nobody is interested in that but you. Wave-particle duality has nothing to do with the discussion.

romanP romanP:

The brain isn't the only medium, since it interacts with everything around it. You're just an antenna and feedback mechanism for those interactions. Other bits of matter like trees and rocks might do the same things, they just don't do them as well as we do.

An "antenna"?? I said "philosophical arguments aside" for a reason.

romanP romanP:

There's a lot we still don't know. For instance, how those self-replicating molecules came into existence. We may have to update the periodic table of elements, or just scrap it and start with a whole new idea about elements altogether. At least, that's what I think.

The periodic table of elements has absolutely nothing to do with the molecules that constituted the origin of life. Your wild claims and opinions are unfounded.

romanP romanP:

I don't think anything that exists outside of human constructs is supernatural. There are only unanswered questions. As Douglas Adams once wrote, if anyone were to solve the universe, it would probably be destroyed and immediately be replaced by something even more mysterious. It seems that the more we find out about physics, the more we discover this is true.

Whatever. Supernatural is the quality of existing beyond the natural. Read my response to Thanos, since he already raised that point.

romanP romanP:

My concept of a soul is consciousness that can somehow survive the body. When we think, learn and create memories, there is a lot of information that has to be stored, and over the course of a lifetime that amount of information is astronomical, so I find it just a little bit hard to believe that some part of that existence doesn't somehow remain intact after we die. That information has to go somewhere, if our current understanding is that nothing can be created or destroyed.

Absurd. Information is stored in brains. When a brain dies, the ability to access that information and release it to the world is utterly lost. Our current understanding of the conservation of mass and energy has absolutely nothing to do with thoughts, feelings, or memories.

Memories are basically strengthened connections between neurons. There's no reason to believe that memories must exist beyond the brain, any more than there's reason to believe that the specific information on a floppy disk remains in existance after I wipe it with a strong magnet.

You should note that this discussion is of the belief in a soul as it applies to atheists. Unless you're an atheist, or wish to discuss the issue from the viewpoint of an atheist, your comments don't belong.

[Blue_Nose]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

why does it have to be supernatural. Doesn't energy animate us? Isn't energy natural and aren't there laws that cover the conservation of energy and matter? We lack the ability to measure a 'soul' now, but a hundred years ago were we able to split atoms or fully understand that the atom wasn't the smallest particle in creation? Dark Energy and Dark matter are all theoretical, yet the scientific community accepts them willingly enough.

Energy in the form of electrical signals in our brain would simply dissipate as heat.

Dark matter, to use your example, is a concept used to explain observed phenomenon in the universe. The concept of a soul may be true, but the reasons for the belief are not based at all on scientific observations.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

Energy in the form of electrical signals in our brain would simply dissipate as heat.

How our brain operates is even now being questioned. Some scientists postulate that our brains operate at a quantum level, which would help explain the speed at which we can process information. Also, if this is the case, we have to take into consideration that

$1:

Quantum objects can exist in multiple states and places at the same time.

http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns
Could not our soul merely be our mind in another state and place?