Reply
Thu 28 Jun, 2007 07:05 pm
I understand that an atheist, if admitting they are one, would likely say they don't believe in a god. However, would this imply that the atheist also doesn't believe in a soul? Could a soul have evolved in a Darwinian evolution sans god?
In my opinion, admitting to not believing in a soul is so anathema to people that believe in god, most people don't broach that non-belief?
Perhaps, we need a new word to describe those that don't believe we have a soul? Soulless? Sanssoul?
In fact, if one doesn't believe in a soul, does that make the non-belief in a god a non-sequitor for all intensive (and religious) purposes?
I have a soul. It is the center of my being, but it is not directed by any force outside myself. I, in the words of the poet, am the captain of my soul.
My soul is the transmitter and receiver of all the signals sent by the billions of other soul holders, some human, but not all. In the most Darwinian sense, my soul is that sense that reachs out to other living things. For it is with and through them that my being will be replicated and live on after I die.
Joe (and I have soul. you should see me dance)Nation
Re: Does atheism eliminate the soul?
Foofie wrote:I understand that an atheist, if admitting they are one, would likely say they don't believe in a god. However, would this imply that the atheist also doesn't believe in a soul? Could a soul have evolved in a Darwinian evolution sans god?
In my opinion, admitting to not believing in a soul is so anathema to people that believe in god, most people don't broach that non-belief?
Perhaps, we need a new word to describe those that don't believe we have a soul? Soulless? Sanssoul?
In fact, if one doesn't believe in a soul, does that make the non-belief in a god a non-sequitor for all intensive (and religious) purposes?
I am an atheist, and I don't see any evidence of a soul either. We don't actually need a words to describe non-belief. Are you an anti-Poseidonist?
Also, don;t make the mistake of thinking that those who don't believe in souls don't have them, and those that do, do.
Either we all do, or we all don't, regardless of our beliefs.
You do not have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
- C. S. Lewis
(as an agnostic, I read it like this: )
You do not have consciousness. You are consciousness. You have a body.
(it all depends on your definition of "soul")
Mainstream Buddhism doesn't have a god, but they believe that people get reincarnated until they can leave attachment to the world behind, which isn't exactly what Christians mean by a soul, but certainly something that presists after the body dies. So no, gods and souls aren't necessarily co-existent.
Remember atheism isn't a creed or a relgion or a set of beliefs that everyone, or, for that matter, anyone, shares. It's simply the belief, however founded and on whatever evidence, that there's no god or gods. So one atheist may not draw the same conclusions as another.
Personally I see no evidence that there's a god, and I also don't think there's any little guy inside somewhere animating us, who's going to live after we draw our last gasp. I think that "I" or "we" is just an epiphenomenon of our brain activity. When the synapses stop firing, there's no more "I".
I can't accept that we are truly the "captain" of our soul. We are interconnected between environment and humanity in ways that help steer our course for us often. In life. After that, I see no soul or self remaining.
After much thought I have concluded we are all Duracell bunnies disguised as humans. When the battery runs out, the commercial is over.
Foofie wrote:
Quote:After much thought I have concluded we are all Duracell bunnies disguised as humans. When the battery runs out, the commercial is over.
Don't mock other peoples beliefs when your beliefs are challenged.
As an atheist I recognize that a physical body is necessary for "consciousness" but may not be sufficient. I am not implying that there is some individual spirit of soul which is a covert requirement for "consciousness" but I cannot rule out some sort of holistic field effect ("cosmic consciousness ?)which is an essential adjunct to individual consiousness. The reason this cannot be ruled out is because mechanistic or reductionist arguments ultimately fail over either "causality" or the fact that we as "observers" can never objectively define "reality". "Physicality" is merely an expression of one relationship observers have with the observed.
BBB
No one can prove there is a God or a Soul.
Now, if you called our brains our "souls", that would lead to a more rational conversation about how can our brains live after our death when "death" means being brain dead?
BBB
Coolwhip wrote:Foofie wrote:
Quote:After much thought I have concluded we are all Duracell bunnies disguised as humans. When the battery runs out, the commercial is over.
Don't mock other peoples beliefs when your beliefs are challenged.
I was not mocking anyone's beliefs ("I have concluded," I thought I have a right to an opinion without anyone accusing me of a specific intent. I don't read minds; I didn't think others could?).
I was using a metaphor which had a light-hearted tone. If I don't sound as serious, as other people, that might be because my brain thinks much of reality is absurd.
Also the reason I don't mock anyone's beliefs is because other people's beliefs are of little interest to me. I have no purpose to mock anyone. I tend to ignore other people's beliefs.
oh, good, so you won't mind if we ignore yours.
Actually, Coolwhip, I found the Duracell statement is, as foofie termed it, kind of a lighthearted way of restating what I believe (see my above post for a more serious satement). I rather liked it.
username wrote:oh, good, so you won't mind if we ignore yours.
Actually, Coolwhip, I found the Duracell statement is, as foofie termed it, kind of a lighthearted way of restating what I believe (see my above post for a more serious satement). I rather liked it.
Yes, ignore my beliefs. Then I know I have to restate them in a more persuasive manner. Force me to use neurons that usually sleep.
Careful, foofie, you'll run your batteries down faster if you use those neurons.
Foofie wrote:
I was not mocking anyone's beliefs ("I have concluded," I thought I have a right to an opinion without anyone accusing me of a specific intent. I don't read minds; I didn't think others could?).
I was using a metaphor which had a light-hearted tone. If I don't sound as serious, as other people, that might be because my brain thinks much of reality is absurd.
Also the reason I don't mock anyone's beliefs is because other people's beliefs are of little interest to me. I have no purpose to mock anyone. I tend to ignore other people's beliefs.
It's funny how some forms of human communication just doesn't work in writing.
<-- (thats why we have smilys)
I have always hated smileys. They have no soul.
Joe(
Arrows are okay)Nation
Was that a joke? Hell, I can't tell! Smileys must become mandatory. Or a at least a three paragraph section to describe your facial expression.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace