Soul

I would go further and say that the only sensible position regarding the existence of things for which no evidence exists is to assume that they don't exist. Strictly speaking, since it is impossible to prove a universal negative, the position should be "The soul almost certainly does not exist.", pending evidence that proves it does exist.Simply saying "We don't know" implies some kind of parity between the existence and non-existence positions, when in actual fact, we are all well aware that when there is absolutely no evidence for something, no need for it, no reason, then that is because it isn't real.Unless one is willing to say that we don't know whether Santa is real or not, the logical default position on the soul is that it doesn't exist.

---

Mutate and Survive

That is just wishful thinking, which is no reason to believe in anything. To a small child, it seems as though Santa is real. Is this reason to believe that he does exist? Is it corroborating evidence, even shitty evidence? To whom must it seem real before we call it evidence? Me? You? A child? A lunatic? Your reason is wholly subjective though and thus, valueless as evidence. In the absence of anything else, "evidence" this bad is equivalent to nothing at all, which just leads me back to my previous position.I am intrigued to hear what these needs you talk about are. Whilst we don't have a full explanation for human conciousness, that does not imply that what we need to fill our knowledge gap is a soul. What we need is the true explanation, not whatever explanation seems the most comforting to theists. So we assume that he isn't (sorry kids). By the same token, if you can provide us with a reason to believe in the soul, beyond a vague sense of "seeming" real, then I might take the proposition a bit more seriously. Until then...

---

Mutate and Survive

Um, from what you say... Are you telling me that you will be disappointed if you discover that there really is a soul? So you have enough evidence to convince a small child that the soul exists. That's not especially compelling. That is why none of this is relevant. The soul, whether it exists or not, is objective. Your subjective experiences and ideas are completely irrelevant. Fair enough. Not much use to the rest of us though Based on that logic, it was sensible for the Yorkshire Ripper to murder women, because his belief that God had told him to kill no doubt seemed sensible to him. But you don't necessarily see one either; you merely think you do. In the absence of any other corroborating evidence, that is worth nothing. That is not what I am saying. It's not just because I can't see the soul, but rather because no-one can, beyond the vague and subjective sense of a soul that you describe. That is exactly the same level of evidence we have for pixies, celestial teapots, the Spaghetti Monster, et al.I don't see the point in being a "soul agnostic". If there is no evidence, I assume, tentatively, but nonetheless quite confidently, that it doesn't exist.

---

Mutate and Survive

If forewarned, then yes it does. Sorry CS, but I can't believe that you are completely neutral to the existence or non-existence of the soul. You seem to want it to be real. No matter how stupid or ignorant they might be? No matter how little evidence they might have? Really? Even if the should resides in a spiritual realm (a meaningless phrase in my opinion) that still doesn't make it subjective. It either exists or it does not. That makes it an objective reality or non-reality. I think we call that reductio ad absurdum. Any system wherein the Yorkshire Ripper can be described as sensible is a debased and valueless system. He wasn't sensible, he was an insane scumbag. His judgement was very far from sound, but, I am sorry to say, based on just as firm a foundation as your belief in a soul, i.e. a comforting idea in the mind and nothing more. How do you know that what you are describing as "soul" is the same as these others? Anyway, a shared delusion is still a delusion. Really? What does it "look" like? What colour is it? Is it warm or cold? What does it smell like? If you are unable to honestly answer these kinds of questions, then you ought to consider that you cannot sense the soul in any meaningful way; it is simply an idea, nothing more. Perhaps someone else does. Plenty of loonies believe in fairies for instance. The only difference is that you value your vague notions above the vague notions of others. You are correct that I am making an assumption, but I do not see this as a problem, so long as I am open to contrary evidence.Of course, you are likely making the same assumption as well with regards to Shiva, Baldur, Anubis, etc. People from other religions were/are just as convinced as you that their non-evidential beliefs are reliable. Are you an Anubis agnostic? Or do you simply assume that he's not real. It is more parsimonious and thus more logical to assume that the myriad of such entities are fiction until such time as there is supporting evidence. I do not expect you to accept this however, since this same logic neatly does away with your own fictional deity of choice.

---

Mutate and Survive