23
   

Can An Atheist Have A Soul?

 
 
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 03:51 pm
Can an Atheist have a soul? What a thread question. If an atheist does not have a soul and is suddenly converted to Christianity does she suddenly develop a soul? And if a theist suddenly awakens does he suddenly lose his soul?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 05:29 pm
@JLNobody,
Good questions, JLN. Unfortunately, many who profess one religion or another continues to "sin." The soul must be confused! LOL
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 10:33 pm
@spiritual anrkst,
spiritual anrkst wrote:

I would like to hear from atheist that reject all forms of spiritual ideas. Most Atheist I encounter are very comfortable debating or disproving Judaic-Christian mythology as well as Muslim belief etc I do not belong to any religion or have any theological beliefs myself.

So to make my question clear I want to know what philosophical reasoning leads most atheist to reject all spirituality even when the spiritual ideas presented are stripped of religion or theology? If atheist applied the same type of reasoning to quantum physics that they typically apply to the idea of a soul or reincarnation the exploration of physics beyond Newton would come to a screeching halt.

In fact quantum physics seems to point to awareness (The Observer) as the cause behind random events overthrowing determinism much to the chagrin of atheist and theological determinist alike. Most atheist like predetermined behaviorism just as theologians like predetermined design to prove their God concepts. And for the same reason. So that those in power can dominate the sheep who give up their freewill to appease the psychology of "the norm" so as to fit in or to appease the church they belong to that they are obedient so they can get the benefit of the group.

So my question remains why reject all metaphysical questions relating to spiritual ideas just because religion is obviously blind and misguided? Why agree to be an unquestioning cog in the behaviorist machine to avoid being one of the religious sheep? What is wrong with replacing Descartes meditations on "I think therefor I am" With "I am aware therefor I have freewill"? For me I can doubt that I think.

Maybe thoughts simply occur because my brain is wired for language. My brain could be generating random words and I am simply rejecting what I have been programmed to believe by society as nonsensical or non adaptive etc and accepting the thoughts that my brain generates randomly that seem to benefit me... as my own... not because I created these thoughts... but simply because this has been the type of thinking that has benefited me in the past.

This would explain consensus or conformist thinking such as religious thinking when the benefits of "belonging" outweigh the disadvantages of nonsensical reasoning. So I can doubt that I think. And I can believe thoughts just "happen" to me no different than me tuning into a radio station over other stations because that type of music appeals to me. My thoughts are not me. I have experienced a sense of self without any thoughts occurring whatsoever but I have never had any experience where I had no awareness.

I can not blame this on my senses receiving input. Even in sensory deprivation there is awareness. Sometimes I am awake before my body wakes. I can not sense my body at all yet I exist and I am aware. So if I am not my thoughts and I am not my senses and I am not my body...then I must be my awareness because there is nothing left for me to be unless I do not exist at all.

But if that were the case then somebody must be imagining me. Unless you are a nihilist or solipsist you must admit that my argument that the only thing I can not doubt if my awareness and from my awareness I can infer that I exist. If observation creates reality then quantum physics can be used to prove together with the premise that I am my awareness to prove that I not only exist but that I am free in a way that is relevant to the argument for freewill. This does not prove I have a soul but I moves the question out of the domain of pure speculation.

This does not automatically open the door for religion or religious concepts of God. Yet the atheist will argue against the soul usually without even considering the points I just made because religion has all but demanded that the soul can only be discussed in a religious context. Why do atheist give them this? Why do atheist just give religion this power so that if an atheist were ever to decide on any basis that maybe they did have a soul they would have to convert by default to some nonsensical faith or religion? Do I need to choose between accepting an invisible man in the sky that controls me like a puppet or being the end result of a chemical bath of my brain? Isn't this the fallacy of the false alternative?


of course the Atheist has a soul , it is called

the Human Spirit

not only of the living soul but also of our Ancestors
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 11:24 pm
If the word "soul" has any meaning for me it is a universal quality. It is what we all share. It is the substance of our unity.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 12:08 am
@JLNobody,
Exactly...(see page 1).
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 04:24 am
Well, the Atheist's Official Handbook says, right here on page 17, that atheists ain't got no souls, and will be summarily dismissed if apprehended attempting to purchase, beg, borrow, steal or cultivate a soul.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 12:06 pm
@north,
Once again, Spiritual anrkst said: "... from my awareness I can infer that I exist".
I don't think so. From one's awareness one can only infer that awareness exists--that an agent of awareness exists follows only as a superfluous addition.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 07:34 pm
@Setanta,
Mine is on page 22; you must have an old edition.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 10:51 am
According to most atheists there is no such thing as a soul--or anything supernatural. According to some atheists, like myself, it may be used metaphorically to refer to the essential substance of everything (in such a case there is only one grand cosmic soul, whatever that is). According to most theists there are individual souls--otherwise they could not take pleasure in their eternal reward and knowledge of the eternal damnation of those they could not convert.
0 Replies
 
Lovee-4ever
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Oct, 2011 08:28 pm
@spiritual anrkst,
Well, in a Catholic's point of view: Yes. Whether they would like to accept it or not, athiests have soul. God gave us all souls. He gave us all a chance to protect our souls and He gave us all the chance to give our souls and all its faculties to Him so we could live again in paradise. Athiests sadly do not protect their souls, but fall under temptation. I don't judge though, because I know athiesm is the work of satan for he prefers you not know God nor himself. He likes to stay a secret because if more people know about him, more people will try to stay away from his temptation...its sad
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Oct, 2011 09:03 pm
@Lovee-4ever,
Wow! Atheists have no souls, and fall under temptation? LOL I guess christians never fall under temptation(s); that would be unsoully!
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  3  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2011 01:02 am
If we're gonna get technical here, to a true believer we don't have souls; rather, we all are souls, temporarily inhabiting a physical body. After the body stops functioning, like a car whose engine has given out, the soul remains. It is immortal.

That's the view of most traditional Christian dogma, including the Roman Catholic.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2011 09:53 am
@Lustig Andrei,
All them priests who raped and molested children are souls. All them christians that committed crimes against their fellow humans are souls. Yea, got it!
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2011 04:31 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Don't know what the problem is with that one, Tag. Doesn't say anywhere that souls are by nature 'good' or that the bodies they inhabit will not 'misbehave.' Some souls are nearly pure evil (see Hitler, A.).

You understand, I hope, that I'm not espousing my own personal metaphysics here, merely explaining what the position of the theistically-minded theologians is.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2011 05:19 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
But you made the claim earlier that atheists don't have a soul. Which is it?
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2011 05:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Not me, c.i. I don't know who said that. Why wouldn't an atheist have a soul?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2011 05:48 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
what is a sole anyway? A small fish that goes well with crabmeat??
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2011 05:49 pm
@farmerman,
That, plus what's on the bottom of my shoe.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2011 05:54 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
I like walking on my soles...and never on top of water. One ancestor who was in the distant past tried that and they made such a fuss over it. They made a religion around it. He just had some neat shoes.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2011 05:56 pm
@Ragman,
Shoo!!!
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/18/2019 at 02:57:15