Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So why do we lump souls in the same superstitious nonsense as ghosts and witches and vampires?
Because it deserves to be lumped with such silliness. You don't have a soul. You have only a consciousness that exists so long as your brain is alive. Once your brain dies, your consciousness is dead, too.
Because it deserves to be lumped with such silliness. You don't have a soul. You have only a consciousness that exists so long as your brain is alive. Once your brain dies, your consciousness is dead, too.
Yes. I would certainly consider that to be the explanation that best accords with the evidence we have at the moment. And that may not be what I 'believe,' but it is sure what I think most probable.
It seems like atheism throws the baby out with the bathwater. Sure, nah, you don't need to believe in God. But not believing in a soul (which is consciousness) is kinda
I think your argument is dubious because it is based on a dubious premise - that soul and consciousness are the same things. Most people would disagree.
If a person is permanently unconscious, does that mean that person has no soul? Most religious people would disagree. Look up Terry Schiavo for a recent example.
My cat is conscious, does that mean she has a soul? Again, most religious people would disagree. Although many/most Hindus would definitely agree. Transmigrationists believe that a soul living in a human body this time around might be living in an animal's body next time around, so in their view, a being's soul is something distinct from that being's consciousness.
Most atheists would agree that while there is plenty of evidence for the existence of consciousness, and there is beginning to be an understanding of how bodies produce it, there is no hard evidence for a soul that survives the death of the body.
It seems like atheism throws the baby out with the bathwater. Sure, nah, you don't need to believe in God. But not believing in a soul (which is consciousness) is kinda
Effectively, it's like this.
We do not have any obligation to obey Christian (or otherwise) moral laws. Soul has nothing to do with morality. It actually has nothing to do with religion, either, it's a word that got swallowed up by religion though. It's more closely akin to baking a cake or painting something, and feeling a rush of energy. But it's more than this.
When you discount the soul, you become enslaved. Example: you, an atheist want to make this one life count, since for all you know (or care) this is all that you have. Okay, fine. You go on living under your own idea of what you want. Then your boss threatens you. If you don't do X favor for him, you're in breach of contract, and he'll blacklist you. Blacklisting means you could potentially die, cutting short your plans.
So? If atheism is all about making the most of this life, and not having to worry about goofy moral laws or thousands of year old writings, why does it dismiss as superstition the one thing that not only clearly exists, but would enable you to do just this? Awareness that whatever life there is, we have a choice in the matter, means you can say "Who cares? After I die, I can just not exist (or whatever). Then this guy won't bother me." Or maybe "I have a soul, so I dictate my reality. Not some God, and not this dude."
What can you do with a soul? Well, anything. It's effectively your self, what distinguishes you from a computer, corpse, or the energizer bunny. You want to not come back after you die, and rot with your body? Sure, fine, go ahead. Same for reincarnation. The soul is the ability to make choices and create your own existence. You don't have one, you don't exist in the first place, except (maybe) as an object.
So why do we lump souls in the same superstitious nonsense as ghosts and witches and vampires? One is clearly part of existence. The only reason we would ever think it didn't, is that it is poorly defined. If you don't have a soul, you're a puppet. If you don't have a self, you don't have a choice. Good luck with that.
Define soul
the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
I have never heard anyone equate consciousness with a soul. So this is news to me.
The soul is eternal and implies no end to consciousness at death. It's probably not formally correct though, I agree; but no one would be interested in a soul or spirit that was not eternal and no one would be interested in eternity without consciousness of it.
The term 'soul' that is taboo to atheists, non-theists refer to a reified soul that survives physical death of a person. Such a 'soul' is synonymous with 'self' the reified 'I AM' that survives eternally after mortality.
Ok. I do take issue with the OP's idea that souls are 'taboo' which implies that we ban discussion of it - which carries the connotation of doing so because it is an unwelcome truth.
In fact (as I hope is now explained and accepted) we are happy to talk about souls. we do not even object to the idea of a soul, no more than to the idea of an afterlife. We just see no good evidential reason to believe in either.
The idea of regarding consciousness as the part that survives after death and is there the manifest Soul is an obvious one. There are obvious problem with that, because you can control and interfere with the consciousness and have split personalities. There is a conscious and subconscious and the instinctive consciousness that we are are of and can talk to. I do it all the time. Some people who do so think it is God talking to them. some came to realize that it wasn't. I have read their stories.
Upshot - no good evidence for a soul. And I'd like to say to the peddlers of various supernaturalistitions 'no more telling lies about atheists, ok?' but it's probably wasted effort.
I swear, I see these philosophical arguments about atheism and it's like the visual equivalent of the teachers on Charlie Brown. Wawawawawawa.
Atheism is not a monolith. Different people have different criteria for what it means, but essentially at its core it is a lack of believe in a deity. For me personally that means I don't believe in anything that doesn't have empirical or tangible evidence to back it up or at the very least a clear and logical theory behind it.
I don't believe in a soul because it doesn't appear to me that there is anything that exists outside our physical body once we die, and there is no evidence to indicate otherwise.
I don't believe in a soul because it doesn't appear to me that there is anything that exists outside our physical body once we die, and there is no evidence to indicate otherwise.
You should try thinking about WHAT leaves the body when someone who has an intact body and functional organs just dies inexplicably. Why would these perfectly okay physical components cease to function??? Just a thought?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
