Can An Atheist Have A Soul?

You wouldn't know an original source even if you were visited by a shadow that came down from the stars to send you a message.

Meaningless assertion like the crap you always utter when you have no answers.

Your incapability of supplying the sources you pretended to know is duly noted..

Your denial and prejudiced disclosure is duly noted.

Trying to evade the responsibility of the assertions you made, are you?

Trying to evade the responsibility of the assumptions you've made, are we?

Timur, as an atheist who IS a soul (an anima, living being grounded in consciousness) I agree. I cannot accept the insinuation made by some that only theists HAVE souls, as if a belief had the power to generate an extraphysical entity. This would be tantamount to the assertion that intelligence is possessed only by people who believe a theoretical proposition such as E=MC2.

As a theist, I agree heartily with all of your points,

Spot on, JL.

I do not have, nor am i a "soul." I consider the concept ludicrous, and evocative of a mumbo-jumbo spiritualist conceit.

I have no soul, and you can't make me. So there.

Can we consider you are inanimate?

You can consider me unimpressed with your attempt to define "soul" in a manner convenient to your personal thesis.

Considering that "soul" is the superstitious term for "electromagnetic energy force", which is scientifically proven and was manned by great men such as Nikola Tesla and Fibonacci, you would be in a terrible place to deny the heavier fields of Science.

No it's not. You're full of sh*t. Of course, it's not as though that were news to anyone here.

I am full of fertilizer? Thank you for the compliment. Yeah, if I was born into this world spoiled and bratty, I wouldn't want to smell the very thing that supplies this world the life that sustains us either. Frankly, I have let go of my ego and learned self-humility, as well as growing a hard skin to deal with those who need not see my self-humility lest they show responsibility of their own.

"No it's not", is not an argument. Try again Puffer Fish Mcgee.

The situation of many so called atheists, is that they have problems accepting religion but no problems accepting terms that belong to religion, in this case, the term soul.

So, an atheist can say that he enjoys an electromagnetic force that maintains him alive, and such might be accepted by all aspects when knowing that the atheist don't believe in a god and by consequence in religion.

An atheist can say that he wants to be buried because he doesn't want his body to be eaten by wild animals around, not so that he wants a funeral that is an ancient ritual involving the idea of traveling to the underground world, going to heaven, or whatever the religious tendency is involved.

A funeral of an atheist might be focused just in showing last respect to the person who was alive, but the atheist can be buried under a papaya tree in order to be useful for something after his death... and no disrespect is found doing so...

So, an atheist saying that he has a "soul" is indirectly his acceptance of religious means in his life. An atheist, a real one, must try to be "pure" in his beliefs, otherwise, he won't be taken seriously. An Atheist using the religious term "soul" as of having one is like a religious person using the obsolete theory of relativity to say that God could have made the world going back in time to avoid the invasions to the kingdom of Israel and similar stupidities.

Mixing of terms and ideas between religion and science is like blending fruits and row meat to make juice or puree, and this is not a good idea... it might taste terrible... it might makes you sick...

The soul doesn't belong to any religion.

Religion didn't create anything.

Man created religion.

Think of religion as that rich guy that says he did it all himself, while leaving out the "details".

It's amazing how religious people keep the pattern of telling lies even if it was demonstrated to them that they were lies.

I've shown you that soul is a rather secular term but you persist saying it's religious.

You are acting like a thief, stealing the meaning of soul for your exclusive usage..

True. Definition for soul.


It has nothing to do with religion since it applies to everybody.

Lets see both opinions with respect to the existence of the soul

Lets start with the definition of a soul given right above:


OK. Now, please mention the ancient philosopher who defined a soul with those words.

Please, excuse me for the following... ha ha ha ha...

See? There is not any ancient definition of a soul as the essence or embodiment of a specified quality.

So, you are lying to yourselves and are trying to pull other people's legs.

Lets check the another opinion



Personal usage?!

First I'm not a religious person, I do not belong to any religious denomination, and I have no gain showing you how incorrect are your thoughts about who invented the word soul.

Second, there are millions and millions of people who use the word soul as a religious definition since ancient eras, because the word soul comes from religious sources.

And the word soul has been defined with many interpretations according to the religion of every culture.

From here, science and seculars have inherited the word soul and have use it as well. But its origin is 100% religious.

By the way, in order to see how laughable is all this fuss about the existence of the soul from a past scientific point of view; I will remind you that when the X-rays were discovered, several tests were made with them. And the University of Pennsylvania in those early years of playing with X-rays made an attempt to obtain an X-ray image of the human soul.

How about that?

I just told you what the "soul" is.

It's electromagnetic energy. Why do you think people say the penny has a soul? It's because it too has electromagnetic energy.

There's no other capital definition for "soul". I'm giving you the finest and greatest colloquial expertise one could ever have.