Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Phmcw]

We can prove anything, provided you want us to. For centuries, god was supposed to be in the sky. Literally (and it would be fitting, isn't it?). Then men began to fly, and we didn't find god. The solar system was supposed to be geocentric. Assured by the pope himself. And then it wasn't. The earth was 6000 years old, deducted by adding everyone's lifspan in the bible. And then it wasn't.

Everytime a tenant of religion is disproven, religious peoples adapt their beliefs. I can disprove your soul, though, if you cant a new one. Just ask and I can change your personaality, forever, by destrying a small part of your brain. Ultimate proof that what make yourself is just the computations inside it.

[Frumple]

Except, again, that doesn't actually disprove the soul*, or state anything in particular about it. At most, it confirms that the interaction between flesh and soul can be interrupted or interfered with, and the fault for that could lie entirely in the flesh. We don't know, we can't know, and assertions to the contrary are making claims that are literally impossible to justify.** Just as claims that an immaterial soul exists are.

*It does disprove some conceptualizations of it, but far from all.
**Insofar as anyone can tell. If we actually become able to measure and observe the soul, that would change.

[Leafsnail]

If you mean in the strict Dawkins version of Atheism, then no, you're unlikely to find a nation-state or country that that is the plurality, unless Cote d'Ivorie or something just hasn't been asked and turns out to.

Dawkins' definition of atheism is the lack of belief in a god.  Japan and China certainly have at least a plurality of these.

The fact that it must be taken on faith seems to suggest that there is no soul.

To me it suggests more that it's one of an infinite number of unfalsifiable ideas that just aren't worth considering for any purpose other than self-comfort.

[Baffler]

The fact that it must be taken on faith seems to suggest that there is no soul.

This only follows if faith is inherently wrong, and cannot be anything else. Is it?

We can prove anything, provided you want us to. For centuries, god was supposed to be in the sky. Literally (and it would be fitting, isn't it?). Then men began to fly, and we didn't find god. The solar system was supposed to be geocentric. Assured by the pope himself. And then it wasn't. The earth was 6000 years old, deducted by adding everyone's lifspan in the bible. And then it wasn't.

Everytime a tenant of religion is disproven, religious peoples adapt their beliefs. I can disprove your soul, though, if you cant a new one. Just ask and I can change your personaality, forever, by destrying a small part of your brain. Ultimate proof that what make yourself is just the computations inside it.

Except none of those things are actually written into scripture. It is true that the idea of a young earth is derived from scripture, if only tangentially, but the idea of a geocentric universe dates back centuries before the birth of Christ, and the idea of God being "in the sky" is even more old and apocryphal.

[Graknorke]

At most, it confirms that the interaction between flesh and soul can be interrupted or interfered with, and the fault for that could lie entirely in the flesh.

What about when people's emotional tendencies change due to brain damage? I would say that counts as changing a fundamental part of the soul.

[Orange Wizard]

I'm sorry, but you literally can't prove or disprove something that claims to transcend reality. By its very nature you can't study it.
The idea that a brain is kind of a reality-interface for the soul makes the "I can change your personality by screwing with your brain" argument moot, as well.

At most, it confirms that the interaction between flesh and soul can be interrupted or interfered with, and the fault for that could lie entirely in the flesh.

What about when people's emotional tendencies change due to brain damage? I would say that counts as changing a fundamental part of the soul.

It changes part of the brain. Brain damage. The brain is damaged. The soul is irrelevant.

[Frumple]

Generally the comparison made is to a receiver dish, grak, as II notes. The soul's whatever is received and expressed by the body. Damage to the dish causes damage to the signal's expression, but says nothing of the signal itself. S'like if your radio's antenna goes to pot it doesn't mean the radio station has exploded. It doesn't say anything about the radio station -- if you want to know about that, you'd have to go check.

And in this case, the proverbial radio station is an invisible, intangible, unobservable one that's presumably in another dimension or somethin' and is posted to interact with the proverbial radio in ways we cannot detect. We lack the capability to go check.

[TD1]

I'm sorry, but you literally can't prove or disprove something that claims to transcend reality. By its very nature you can't study it.
The idea that a brain is kind of a reality-interface for the soul makes the "I can change your personality by screwing with your brain" argument moot, as well.

At most, it confirms that the interaction between flesh and soul can be interrupted or interfered with, and the fault for that could lie entirely in the flesh.

What about when people's emotional tendencies change due to brain damage? I would say that counts as changing a fundamental part of the soul.

It changes part of the brain. Brain damage. The brain is damaged. The soul is irrelevant.

Then your soul is not you. When you die, you'll be as dead as baby-you is dead.

It is essentially a nothingness-death for you as you are now.

The fact that it must be taken on faith seems to suggest that there is no soul.

This only follows if faith is inherently wrong, and cannot be anything else. Is it?

Does it? Faith is not wrong. It just isn't a basis for living an entire life. "I have faith that the universe is powered by a giant squid. Evidence? Why, the milky way is in a vague-tentacle shape, and space is its black ink." nothing inherently wrong with this belief, but it is still wrong.

[Graknorke]

At most, it confirms that the interaction between flesh and soul can be interrupted or interfered with, and the fault for that could lie entirely in the flesh.

What about when people's emotional tendencies change due to brain damage? I would say that counts as changing a fundamental part of the soul.

It changes part of the brain. Brain damage. The brain is damaged. The soul is irrelevant.

As far as I'm concerned they're the same thing. That is to say, your soul (the entirety of your emotions, memories, things like that) are because of the structure of your brain, partially how it grew and how it changes over your lifetime.

But in the context of the "soul is external" thing, I think the personality modification stands. Sure, the antenna might be able to cause you to lose signal or whatever, but if you're able to influence what's on the radio by modifying your antenna, maybe you're actually changing more than that.

[Orange Wizard]

Then your soul is not you. When you die, you'll be as dead as baby-you is dead.

It is essentially a nothingness-death for you as you are now.

If my brain is a radio, I can also wiggle the Bass/Treble dial and mess with the volume controls to change how the signal is received. [/stretchingthemetaphortofar]

If the core of "me" is my soul, and my soul is apart from reality, there's no reason to assume that death in the body equals death in the soul.

Does it? Faith is not wrong. It just isn't a basis for living an entire life. "I have faith that the universe is powered by a giant squid. Evidence? Why, the milky way is in a vague-tentacle shape, and space is its black ink." nothing inherently wrong with this belief, but it is still wrong.

It's not wrong, but it's wrong?
As far as we know, the Universe might well be powered by a giant squid. It's an unfalsifiable claim.

[Leafsnail]

The thing is once it's unfalsifiable that really means "It cannot have any effect on reality", because otherwise you'd be able to test it.  So instead of being wrong it's just irrelevant.

[Orange Wizard]

Well, I never said it was a sensible thing to believe.

[TD1]

If the core of "me" is my soul, and my soul is apart from reality, there's no reason to assume that death in the body equals death in the soul.

Your soul is not you as you are now, you agree? Your body is influenced by hormones/chemicals and circumstance.

So, when you die, the bit that makes you you/unique dies. Your personality dies. Maybe your memory will remain, but what does that matter? It will be like remembering thoughts from infancy.

When you die, your body rots. Your soul might be elsewhere (though my opinion is that soul and mental process are the same) but if it is, it's not you.

[k33n]

I'm sorry, but you literally can't prove or disprove something that claims to transcend reality. By its very nature you can't study it.

And you can't keep ignoring the arguments forever. Even the fact that you are still claiming that the soul transcends reality shows that you have yet to read the arguments we are putting forth.

[TD1]

Well, I never said it was a sensible thing to believe.

The only difference between what I said and religion is time and upbringing. Possibly a bit of literature built around it, too.