What's the justification for believing in the soul?

[Bick]

It doesn't seem like there's any good evidence or rational justification for the existence of a soul. Most of the things i've heard are fallacious appeals to identity, and appeals to consequences like if we don't have a soul, then we can't have free will. I've also seen no demonstration that free will and consciousness is impossible within a purely physical environment. It seems to me that you'd have to show that a physical basis for free will and a soul is impossible in order to make the case that a metaphysical soul is a necessary claim. I think you'd also have the make the case that free will actually exists as well because there's no demonstration of that either. Otherwise the working, non absolute hypothesis should be that consciousness and free will is at least possible within a materialistic worldview given the facts that there are sentient humans, the only world we know is a physical world, and that physical material seems capable of producing a wide variety of advanced and complicated phenomena and synergistic effects.

So please let me know what kind of evidence or reasoning or logic exists to back up the assertion that at soul exists.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Didn't I provide the data that you could search for on Youtube - doctors verifying what is going on, etc.
I even provided part of what happened as verified by the doctors and one incident.

I am not in the mood to babysit atheists today, sorry.

I'm not sure you know what the word "data" means. You provided potential search terms. That is not data.

If you don't know the difference between a search term and data, I'm uncertain why your word on this matter should be trusted.

So let's me do some serious heavy lifting here to help you out:

Data - Wikipedia

Web search engine - Wikipedia

I posted two things here, and it took seconds. Not so hard.

Considering how stupidly easy that was for me, I'm just going to assume that you either made up the NDE story, realized that the methodology and results are sketchy at best, or you sincerely can't find it again. . . A true trilemma for you; Fibber, Foolish, or Forgetful. So which are you?

Dodges won't work here (Flippant) because you made negative generalizations about atheists on a thread that wasn't about atheists, so I'm pretty invested now. Likely, you may just want to slink away . . .

 

[YmirGF]

How can you be a 'strong atheist' and say you have had "hundreds of out-of-body adventures". Doesn't that contradict the materialistic universe dogma?
I have never had any, fortunately.

The thing is, most people who have opinions on this type of thing, don't have the slightest idea what they are talking about. God and religion have nothing to do with it. Should I care about this so-called materialistic universe dogma? Are you going to continue on with your limited ideas about atheists by lumping altogether as if they are some kind of church?

What you may not understand is that it was what I discovered in my adventures that grounded me in my atheism. No gods, no hell, no heaven, no demons. Just growth.

 

[serp777]

I'm not sure you know what the word "data" means. You provided potential search terms. That is not data.

If you don't know the difference between a search term and data, I'm uncertain why your word on this matter should be trusted.

So let's me do some serious heavy lifting here to help you out:

Data - Wikipedia

Web search engine - Wikipedia

I posted two things here, and it took seconds. Not so hard.

Considering how stupidly easy that was for me, I'm just going to assume that you either made up the NDE story, realized that the methodology and results are sketchy at best, or you sincerely can't find it again. . . A true trilemma for you; Fibber, Foolish, or Forgetful. So which are you?

Dodges won't work here (Flippant) because you made negative generalizations about atheists on a thread that wasn't about atheists, so I'm pretty invested now. Likely, you may just want to slink away . . .

Wow you obliterated him. I'm betting he's gone for good from this thread.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I think the fact you can reflect on yourself is proof of another entity within you. Who is doing the reflecting and on whom?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

It doesn't seem like there's any good evidence or rational justification for the existence of a soul. Most of the things i've heard are fallacious appeals to identity, and appeals to consequences like if we don't have a soul, then we can't have free will. I've also seen no demonstration that free will and consciousness is impossible within a purely physical environment. It seems to me that you'd have to show that a physical basis for free will and a soul is impossible in order to make the case that a metaphysical soul is a necessary claim. I think you'd also have the make the case that free will actually exists as well because there's no demonstration of that either. Otherwise the working, non absolute hypothesis should be that consciousness and free will is at least possible within a materialistic worldview given the facts that there are sentient humans, the only world we know is a physical world, and that physical material seems capable of producing a wide variety of advanced and complicated phenomena and synergistic effects.

So please let me know what kind of evidence or reasoning or logic exists to back up the assertion that at soul exists.

Are you discussing freewill or the soul because those are two seperate subjects?

If you want to discuss the soul we need to establish your idea of the soul as I've done in the thread:Does one ceases to be human when one dies?

In my thread I defined the soul as an incoporeal entity that resides in the physical body. In that thread what I should've included was that there are philosophical arguments regarding the duality of mind and soul (Rene Descartes is famous for this). However take into account NDE or Near Death Experiences where patients experience cardiac arrest and experience a sense of floating in the air overlooking their body. How do we explain the vivid details of a person being brought back and watching medical personnel trying to bring the patient back? The following research article which is actually interesting, will give some insight.

Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands - ScienceDirect

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I know that no one wants to look at what God says about the soul. But the same word translated in the Bible as "soul" is also translated as creature or beast or body. Man does not HAVE a soul, man IS a soul. When God breathed life into Adam he became a living soul. Maybe the word you are looking for is "spirit" beacuse man does have a spirit. But that is a whole different subject. And ofcourse if you leave God out of it you can make up whatever gibberish you want.

 

[serp777]

Are you discussing freewill or the soul because those are two seperate subjects?

If you want to discuss the soul we need to establish your idea of the soul as I've done in the thread:Does one ceases to be human when one dies?

In my thread I defined the soul as an incoporeal entity that resides in the physical body. In that thread what I should've included was that there are philosophical arguments regarding the duality of mind and soul (Rene Descartes is famous for this). However take into account NDE or Near Death Experiences where patients experience cardiac arrest and experience a sense of floating in the air overlooking their body. How do we explain the vivid details of a person being brought back and watching medical personnel trying to bring the patient back? The following research article which is actually interesting, will give some insight.

Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands - ScienceDirect

The only reason I included free will here is because people often tie the soul to free will, but i agree they are independent fundamentally.

However, first what is your definition of incorporeal? Do you mean it has no effect on the brain? Because as soon as it starts influencing the physical substrate it ceases to be purely incorporeal. It has a corporeal aspect in that case, which should be measurable and therefore subject to scientific study.

Also I don't understand why you posted that study. That study addresses the fact that people have NDEs and it is exploring the medical cause of them, not the confirmation of whether NDEs are supernatural. Furthermore, Also, NDEs have nothing to do with the soul really. NDEs could be possible without the soul existing.

How do we explain the vivid details of a person being brought back and watching medical personnel trying to bring the patient back?

This is just an argument from ignorance. Even if we had no explanations other than the soul, that still wouldn't give credence to the idea that a soul was responsible for NDEs. You haven't demonstrated any evidence for a soul or a logically necessary argument. Until then you're just proposing: I can't explain these NDEs, therefore souls. Its fallacious reasoning.

 

[Desert Snake]

Where I come from, that's commonly known as moving the goalposts. Proving something to oneself is one thing, proving to another is where the rubber really hits the road.

That's false in argumentation, because you can always claim that you don't accept the proof, not proven to you.

That's why when proof is utilized in argument, there has to be agreed upon parameters by which to determine when something has been proven.
No such agreement was there, that I noticed.

Another problem of 'proof', is that you may not be able to prove something tnat is obvious, ex unicorns not roaming mars, or such. You have to have disproof when proof is introduced, otherwise sound ideas can be not accepted, making for goofy neccesitated conclusions, especially in the sciences.

 

[serp777]

I think the fact you can reflect on yourself is proof of another entity within you. Who is doing the reflecting and on whom?

This is yet another implication of an argument from ignorance on this thread. I can't explain the fact that you can reflect on yourself, therefore the soul must be doing the reflecting.

 

[serp777]

I know that no one wants to look at what God says about the soul. But the same word translated in the Bible as "soul" is also translated as creature or beast or body. Man does not HAVE a soul, man IS a soul. When God breathed life into Adam he became a living soul. Maybe the word you are looking for is "spirit" beacuse man does have a spirit. But that is a whole different subject. And ofcourse if you leave God out of it you can make up whatever gibberish you want.

Ok well thank you for that list of assertions. I don't know why any of that should be accepted nor why we should accept the distinction between a soul and a spirit.

 

[Grandliseur]

A true trilemma for you; Fibber, Foolish, or Forgetful. So which are you?

I'll give you the link. If you are incapable of finding this when given the direct wording it contains in its name. I looked at video #2:

Since I now have provided you with two links with the exact name included which were given, perhaps you might shut the hell up with your insults.
Can you see that these videos contain this same phrase, "NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCE #" !

Wonder why this was hard for you?! Wonder why you have to succumb to insults?! Is this a mental deficiency in all atheists?
Since when do we have a dictionary-police force here? That I use the word data loosely to refer to a key phrase of a collection of words you should search for - seems to have greatly offended you. What a sin I committed! I repent, I repent, I repent, I repent! Do I need to write this a hundred times to be forgiven.

 

[serp777]

That's false in argumentation, because you can always claim that you don't accept the proof, not proven to you.

That's why when proof is utilized in argument, there has to be agreed upon parameters by which to determine when something has been proven.
No such agreement was there, that I noticed.

Another problem of 'proof', is that you may not be able to prove something tnat is obvious, ex unicorns not roaming mars, or such. You have to have disproof when proof is introduced, otherwise sound ideas can be not accepted, making for goofy neccesitated conclusions, especially in the sciences

/ scientists speculate the moon of

Can they prove it?

Well..no..

Ahaaa!,, then it is "wrong"!

That sort of thing.

Usually the agreed upon parameters are the logical absolutes and the foundation of reasoning. Scientific evidence is also a good substitute for logical proof because its based on reality. This isn't necessarily everything, but logically necessary arguments and scientific evidence are the most reliable pathways to truth.

 

[Grandliseur]

The thing is, most people who have opinions on this type of thing, don't have the slightest idea what they are talking about. God and religion have nothing to do with it. Should I care about this so-called materialistic universe dogma? Are you going to continue on with your limited ideas about atheists by lumping altogether as if they are some kind of church?

What you may not understand is that it was what I discovered in my adventures that grounded me in my atheism. No gods, no hell, no heaven, no demons. Just growth.

You bowl me over. I didn't think this idea, this type of happening, could co-exist in an atheist's mind. I guess I was wrong. I have been wrong before.
Atheists are supposed to only believe in a materialistic universe. What is happening with the out of body experience would seem to violate that in my understanding. This kind of thing seems highly spiritual and opposed to the atheistic claims. But, each to his own.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

The only reason I included free will here is because people often tie the soul to free will, but i agree they are independent fundamentally.

However, first what is your definition of incorporeal? Do you mean it has no effect on the brain? Because as soon as it starts influencing the physical substrate it ceases to be purely incorporeal. It has a corporeal aspect in that case, which should be measurable and therefore subject to scientific study.

Also I don't understand why you posted that study. That study addresses the fact that people have NDEs and it is exploring the medical cause of them, not the confirmation of whether NDEs are supernatural. Furthermore, Also, NDEs have nothing to do with the soul really. NDEs could be possible without the soul existing.



This is just an argument from ignorance. Even if we had no explanations other than the soul, that still wouldn't give credence to the idea that a soul was responsible for NDEs. You haven't demonstrated any evidence for a soul or a logically necessary argument. Until then you're just proposing: I can't explain these NDEs, therefore souls. Its fallacious reasoning.

Have you heard of dualism? also, I'm not posing any argument but a question, if you're really trying to have a dialetical debate regarding the existence of the soul why not bring this up in the philosophy section. SMDH

 

[Epic Beard Man]

This thread started out as a pissing contest...."Hey prove to me you're right" sometimes atheists get on my damn nerves. I'm at work, I neither have time nor the patients to have a debate on whether the soul exists. The OP is dismissive. This is nothing more than prove God exists debate. God cannot be proven to exist or not exist all we have are what argument comes close.

 

[serp777]

Have you heard of dualism? also, I'm not posing any argument but a question, if you're really trying to have a dialetical debate regarding the existence of the soul why not bring this up in the philosophy section. SMDH

Yes and I reject dualism. Also the religious debate section gets more traffic and the soul is a very important component in theology and religious debate circles so I think its very relevant to put it in this particular section.

 

[YmirGF]

You bowl me over. I didn't think this idea, this type of happening, could co-exist in an atheist's mind. I guess I was wrong. I have been wrong before.
Atheists are supposed to only believe in a materialistic universe. What is happening with the out of body experience would seem to violate that in my understanding. This kind of thing seems highly spiritual and opposed to the atheistic claims. But, each to his own.

Why thank you. I do understand how this would seem to fly in the face of so-called 'reason' but the reality is that the whooshy gooshy spiritualism side of this and the thoughts of divinity quickly evaporate as one sees they are simply comforting constructs we have erected over many generations. I'm not saying that this is not a deeply moving and perhaps a genuine 'spiritual' experience rather it's not spiritual in the ordinary sense of the word. The reality becomes the new norm as it were.

 

[serp777]

This thread started out as a pissing contest...."Hey prove to me you're right" sometimes atheists get on my damn nerves. I'm at work, I neither have time nor the patients to have a debate on whether the soul exists. The OP is dismissive. This is nothing more than prove God exists debate. God cannot be proven to exist or not exist all we have are what argument comes close.

Stop being a cry baby. It must be upsetting you because you have no rational justification but you'd like to believe anyways. Of course im dismissive; why wouldn't i be dismissive of weak arguments and a lack of evidence? And this has nothing to do with God; that's a strawman. The soul could exist whether or not God exists. Also why are you on RF if you're supposed to be working? Your post is completely nonsensical and contradictory. You don't have time or patience but you have time and patience to explain that you don't have the time and patience? Give me a break.

 

[YmirGF]

Yes and I reject dualism. Also the religious debate section gets more traffic and the soul is a very important component in theology and religious debate circles so I think its very relevant to put it in this particular section.

And that is one thing that makes me more than a bit naughty. I do not support the concepts of soul as described in numerous religions. The personality enhancement I'm imagining are more akin to inner states described in Buddhism and to a lesser extent, Hinduism and have little in common with Abrahamic traditions of the supposed soul.