There is no such thing as a soul

[DAZMCFC]

In all religions, there is a soul or spirit outside of your body. It doesn't exist. It is all physical. If someone damages their brain, their personality changes. What you would call "who they are" changes. Basically, their "soul" changes. That is proof that the soul doesn't exist and disproves all religions and other such theistic beliefs.

Of course there is a "soul" just as there is a "rythm & blues" and ... oh wait wrong argument.

It is easy to identify the elements of the strawman you have assembled in order to set them on fire, but it is not really all that productive. It is, in some respects, an apple and orange comparison and people on either side who attempt to make them equivalent are doing themselves a great disservice.

It is always possible to narrow down a subject to such fine detail that the subject gets lost. A good example, which I learned decades go was a course on organic chemistry from the physics level, the interaction of the various orbitals and how they cause the various atomic bondings. Work at that level of detail and you thend to miss out the underlying organic processes. In short you can't see the forest because you are staring at the bottom of a single leaf.

This process continues when we take these larger concepts and attempt to define them. We can take large collections of liquid objects, for exmple, and call them rivers, lakes, and oceans. The Hudson is a river right? (Wrong it's an estuary, but I digress.) *zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz* The "Soul" is likewise a vague super concept. Much like the distinctions between a river (or an esturary) and a sea or ocean the boundaries are arbitrary.

We could, for example, define the soul as the integral of all thought of a given organism, where we define the though as the integral of impulses within the brain at any one given instant. Of couse we could define the soul as anything we like. That's the nature of defining things.

[InkL0sed]

I'm a true believer in the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts." The "soul", in my opinion, is simply that extra bit. But I mostly agree with the sentiment of the OP.

[Dancing Mustard]

Well regardless of who is or isn't right; I think we can all safely agree that gay people have no souls.

After all, it's in the Bible.

[suggs]

Bless you my son, for you speak the tolerance of angels.

[tzor]

Well regardless of who is or isn't right; I think we can all safely agree that gay people have no souls.

I don't know if that was in the Bible, but Moses didn't have a soul when he was standing in front of the burning bush ... he was told to take his sandals off first.

[Dancing Mustard]

I don't know if that was in the Bible, but Moses didn't have a soul when he was standing in front of the burning bush ...

Then he was gay at the time.

Case closed.

[MeDeFe]

In all religions, there is a soul or spirit outside of your body. It doesn't exist. It is all physical. If someone damages their brain, their personality changes. What you would call "who they are" changes. Basically, their "soul" changes. That is proof that the soul doesn't exist and disproves all religions and other such theistic beliefs.

Of course there is a "soul" just as there is a "rythm & blues" and ... oh wait wrong argument.

It is easy to identify the elements of the strawman you have assembled in order to set them on fire, but it is not really all that productive. It is, in some respects, an apple and orange comparison and people on either side who attempt to make them equivalent are doing themselves a great disservice.

It is always possible to narrow down a subject to such fine detail that the subject gets lost. A good example, which I learned decades go was a course on organic chemistry from the physics level, the interaction of the various orbitals and how they cause the various atomic bondings. Work at that level of detail and you thend to miss out the underlying organic processes. In short you can't see the forest because you are staring at the bottom of a single leaf.

This process continues when we take these larger concepts and attempt to define them. We can take large collections of liquid objects, for exmple, and call them rivers, lakes, and oceans. The Hudson is a river right? (Wrong it's an estuary, but I digress.) The "Soul" is likewise a vague super concept. Much like the distinctions between a river (or an esturary) and a sea or ocean the boundaries are arbitrary.

We could, for example, define the soul as the integral of all thought of a given organism, where we define the though as the integral of impulses within the brain at any one given instant. Of couse we could define the soul as anything we like. That's the nature of defining things.

That's very... relativistic. Saying that the soul is what we say it is. It's even compatible with physicalism.

[Snorri1234]

Bastard stole my joke.

[Neoteny]

Bastard stole my joke.

Victory is mine!

[heavycola]

The "Soul" is likewise a vague super concept. Much like the distinctions between a river (or an esturary) and a sea or ocean the boundaries are arbitrary.

We could, for example, define the soul as the integral of all thought of a given organism, where we define the though as the integral of impulses within the brain at any one given instant. Of couse we could define the soul as anything we like. That's the nature of defining things.

But in a xian theological context we are told that the soul is a non-corporeal essence in whcih a person's 'selfness' and personality are contained entirely (otherwise the concept of an afterlife is pointless - if it's not 'you' going to heaven, who is it?). And it must be non-corporeal because we all know that physical bodies don't go anywhere after they die.

So the OP's basic idea - that personality changes that happen after brain trauma are well documented, suggesting that our personalities and sense of self are as physical as our autonomous systems - is a good starting point for another barney.

[tzor]

\But in a xian theological context we are told that the soul is a non-corporeal essence in whcih a person's 'selfness' and personality are contained entirely (otherwise the concept of an afterlife is pointless - if it's not 'you' going to heaven, who is it?). And it must be non-corporeal because we all know that physical bodies don't go anywhere after they die.

Well since you brought up the Christian (and if you can't find a good character representation for the superimposed greek chi and rho letters you shouldn't really use a close substitute) context I'll bring up the CCC.

II. "BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE"

362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363 In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person. But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of "the image of God": it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:


Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people "wholly", with "spirit and soul and body" kept sound and blameless at the Lord's coming. The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul. "Spirit" signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.

368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one's being, where the person decides for or against God.

[heavycola]

\But in a xian theological context we are told that the soul is a non-corporeal essence in whcih a person's 'selfness' and personality are contained entirely (otherwise the concept of an afterlife is pointless - if it's not 'you' going to heaven, who is it?). And it must be non-corporeal because we all know that physical bodies don't go anywhere after they die.

Well since you brought up the Christian (and if you can't find a good character representation for the superimposed greek chi and rho letters you shouldn't really use a close substitute)

I am sorry but this is the wankiest thing anyone has ever said to me in this forum. And anyway, my wife is a theology postgrad. 'Xian' is shorthand I picked it up from her. OK?

I'll bring up the CCC.

II. "BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE"

363 In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person. But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him , that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of "the image of God": it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:

I went to two church of england schools. My secondary school was an old theological college. This doesn't make me an authority on anything religious; but having been sermonised at and taught this nonsense for 10 years, I do believe that the basic xian idea of the soul that I have grown up with is probably pretty standard.
It is non-corporeal and spiritual in essence. The OP was arguing that changes in personalty resulting from physical brain trauma suggest that the 'innermost aspect of man [is the CC still this misogynistic? Sorry, daft question], that which is of greatest value in him' is very physical indeed.

[tzor]

I went to two church of england schools. My secondary school was an old theological college. This doesn't make me an authority on anything religious; but having been sermonised at and taught this nonsense for 10 years, I do believe that the basic xian idea of the soul that I have grown up with is probably pretty standard.
It is non-corporeal and spiritual in essence. The OP was arguing that changes in personalty resulting from physical brain trauma suggest that the 'innermost aspect of man [is the CC still this misogynistic? Sorry, daft question], that which is of greatest value in him' is very physical indeed.

But you also forgot the point that "Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity." The original poster was making the strawman argument that the "soul" is seperate from the "body" and that since changes to the body can result in changes to the personality the soul doesn't exist. Body and soul are united in life and seperated in death. But since we don't know exactly what the unity is and the nature of the seperation it is silly to speculate straw men for personal amusement.

Note that the CC still uses Latin as a base language. In Latin a person of the male gender is represented by "vir" and the generic notion of "man" without being gender specific is "homo." (I trust we can keep the homo jokes to a minimum.)

[Snorri1234]

I went to two church of england schools. My secondary school was an old theological college. This doesn't make me an authority on anything religious; but having been sermonised at and taught this nonsense for 10 years, I do believe that the basic xian idea of the soul that I have grown up with is probably pretty standard.
It is non-corporeal and spiritual in essence. The OP was arguing that changes in personalty resulting from physical brain trauma suggest that the 'innermost aspect of man [is the CC still this misogynistic? Sorry, daft question], that which is of greatest value in him' is very physical indeed.

But you also forgot the point that "Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity." The original poster was making the strawman argument that the "soul" is seperate from the "body" and that since changes to the body can result in changes to the personality the soul doesn't exist. Body and soul are united in life and seperated in death. But since we don't know exactly what the unity is and the nature of the seperation it is silly to speculate straw men for personal amusement.

Note that the CC still uses Latin as a base language. In Latin a person of the male gender is represented by "vir" and the generic notion of "man" without being gender specific is "homo." (I trust we can keep the homo jokes to a minimum.)

Well, when we're talking about homosexuality, the term derives from the greek term "homos" which means "same". This fits better as it applies to women to.

[heavycola]

I went to two church of england schools. My secondary school was an old theological college. This doesn't make me an authority on anything religious; but having been sermonised at and taught this nonsense for 10 years, I do believe that the basic xian idea of the soul that I have grown up with is probably pretty standard.
It is non-corporeal and spiritual in essence. The OP was arguing that changes in personalty resulting from physical brain trauma suggest that the 'innermost aspect of man [is the CC still this misogynistic? Sorry, daft question], that which is of greatest value in him' is very physical indeed.

But you also forgot the point that "Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity." The original poster was making the strawman argument that the "soul" is seperate from the "body"

So it's only a strawman if you're a catholic? I'm assuming the OP isn't.

Body and soul are united in life and seperated in death.

And anyway - what's this then?

Note that the CC still uses Latin as a base language. In Latin a person of the male gender is represented by "vir" and the generic notion of "man" without being gender specific is "homo." (I trust we can keep the homo jokes to a minimum.)

i was being arsey for the sake of it. The catholic church's misogyny is probably a subject for another thread. Wouldn't harm them to change 'man' to 'humans' or 'humankind'' though would it?

[tzor]

So it's only a strawman if you're a catholic? I'm assuming the OP isn't.

Body and soul are united in life and seperated in death.

And anyway - what's this then?

i was being arsey for the sake of it. The catholic church's misogyny is probably a subject for another thread. Wouldn't harm them to change 'man' to 'humans' or 'humankind'' though would it?

The OP started out with "In all religions, there is a soul or spirit outside of your body. It doesn't exist. It is all physical." The argument here is a straw man, granted in more ways than one, several sects of Judaism didn't believe in the soul or any form of life after death. By making straw man definitions and them proceeding to burn the straw you haven't really proven anything.

As for the notion that the soul is united and then seperated, frankly I haven't a clue. I can speculate, play interesting "what if" scenarios with the fascinating nature of infinity where depending on how one raches the two numbers as a limit, zero times infinity can be any number you want it to be.

Human is probably the better word these days, although I still think it's an insult used by aliens and computers against us. Yet "man" has had a tradition of non gender usage and that's still the first definition in Webster's Unabridged.

1 a : a member of the human race : a human being : PERSON -- usually used of males except in general or indefinite applications with collective adjectives or in the plural <every man must now do his duty> <all men, both male and female -- David Hume died 1776>

[suggs]

I couldn't be arsed to read all of this. But is Tzor seriously trying to claim that most Xians don't think the " soul" is non physical/corporeal? (and most non Xians too).
look Tzor, yeah you can define stuff however you want (YAWN), but MOST people accept the soul is non -physical -its wht makes it the soul, nd distinct from the body.

Tzor, you strike me as a man who wants to show off obscure knowledge as often as possible. Fair enough-this is an internet forum after all!
But lets use a bit of intellignce, shall we? It doesnt take much brain power to realise a more interesting discussion can be have without resorting to "Ah, but I define X as Y" -that got quite dull at sixth form, let alone now.

[Simon Viavant]

Since there's arguement over what a soul is, I see a soul as something outside of our body that possibly lives on when we die. It has been proven many times that your personality, what you would call who you are, what you would call your soul, basically, you, are based in the brain and if your brain is damaged, you change.

[MeDeFe]

You didn't miss much suggs, on the one hand the body and the soul are one entity, but when you die they're suddenly two different ones, very strange.

And Simon, if the soul is somehow separate and outside of your body, how does it change when your brain changes?

[Simon Viavant]

Your personality and stuff changes. Basically, what you would call "who you are" Isn't that what most people think? That you live on exactly how you were, except with no body? Well, if you get brain damage, you change. Have you heard of Phineas Gage? He was a railroad foreman in the 19th century. One day, an explosion made an iron bar go through his head, taking out parts of his brain. Amazingly, he lived on and was able to function. But he became an asshole after that, and he used to be a really efficient foreman, but his company had to fire him because he wasn't efficient anymore and yelled at people over petty things and stuff like that. His personality changed. What you would call, his soul.

[joecoolfrog]

I had Lemon Sole for dinner, very pleasant though of course Dover is preferable if one can afford it.

[heavycola]

The OP started out with "In all religions, there is a soul or spirit outside of your body. It doesn't exist. It is all physical." The argument here is a straw man, granted in more ways than one, several sects of Judaism didn't believe in the soul or any form of life after death. By making straw man definitions and them proceeding to burn the straw you haven't really proven anything.

As for the notion that the soul is united and then seperated, frankly I haven't a clue. I can speculate, play interesting "what if" scenarios with the fascinating nature of infinity where depending on how one raches the two numbers as a limit, zero times infinity can be any number you want it to be.

first para: actually i think the thread title is the argument's conclusion, not its premise. Physical effects can alter a person's personality, therefore personality is physical. Therefore what xians call 'the soul' is also physical, not ethereal. It's not really a straw man - based on the xian notion of a soul, it's a sound argument that deserves more of a response.

Which leads to to para 2:
Huh?

[DaGip]

no, but I'm partially Buddhist,
if you really wanna know I'm part Christian, Taoist, and Buddhist
yeah, I know it's confusing

Me TOO! That's Amazing!

[OnlyAmbrose]

In all religions, there is a soul or spirit outside of your body. It doesn't exist. It is all physical. If someone damages their brain, their personality changes. What you would call "who they are" changes. Basically, their "soul" changes. That is proof that the soul doesn't exist and disproves all religions and other such theistic beliefs.

If I'm watching a TV show, and I break the TV, the picture will get messed up. Did the program change or did the TV break so the program is no longer effectively communicated to the outside world?

[MeDeFe]

Your personality and stuff changes. Basically, what you would call "who you are" Isn't that what most people think? That you live on exactly how you were, except with no body? Well, if you get brain damage, you change. Have you heard of Phineas Gage? He was a railroad foreman in the 19th century. One day, an explosion made an iron bar go through his head, taking out parts of his brain. Amazingly, he lived on and was able to function. But he became an asshole after that, and he used to be a really efficient foreman, but his company had to fire him because he wasn't efficient anymore and yelled at people over petty things and stuff like that. His personality changed. What you would call, his soul.

Yes I've already heard of that case. What I'm asking is: How can a non-corporeal soul be affected by things happening to the body?