For Atheists

[JustHereToTalk]

Yes, I have a similar question, but I didn't want to make a thread about it.

What do athiests think of the soul? How do you account for it?

What is the soul?

 

[Eudaimonist]

What is the soul?

The post you are responding to is from 2005. :o


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Robban]

What is the soul?

The soul is the self, the "I" that inhabits the body and acts through it .
Spirit/Ruach which is one of the five names that comprise the soul is,

the emotional self and "personality".

 

[JustHereToTalk]

The post you are responding to is from 2005.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JustHereToTalk]

The soul is the self, the "I" that inhabits the body and acts through it .
Spirit/Ruach which is one of the five names that comprise the soul is,

the emotional self and "personality".

Sounds good. What does that have to do with believing or not believing in God?

 

[Robban]

Sounds good. What does that have to do with believing or not believing in God?

Another name for the soul is,
Yechida/singularity,

connotes the essence of the soul-
its unity with its source,
the singular essence of G-d.

For the essence of the soul of man is "literally" a part of G-d above-a piece of G-d in us.

 

[Robban]

The post you are responding to is from 2005.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Did not notice that,
good you are awake Mark.

 

[JustHereToTalk]

Another name for the soul is,
Yechida/singularity,

connotes the essence of the soul-
its unity with its source,
the singular essence of G-d.

For the essence of the soul of man is "literally" a part of G-d above-a piece of G-d in us.

OK, so your definition of "soul" really isn't an evidence of God issue. I suppose the original question is lost, since it was asked 12 years ago lol

 

[Robban]

OK, so your definition of "soul" really isn't an evidence of God issue. I suppose the original question is lost, since it was asked 12 years ago lol

It is relevant today too.

Not my definition exactly, though I have no doubt about it.

Gen 2:7,
9:4-5.

The five names of the soul are,
Soul,
spirit,
breath,
Life,
singularity.

To go further the Chassidic masters speak of two distinct souls that vitilize the human being:
an animal soul and a G-dly soul.

But no point in going further.

 

[Robban]

#149,
Also relevant in these days,
careless speech.

 

[Uber Genius]

Trying to answer for others is rarely a good idea.

Less than generous. I qualified it and have studied more an most. Your comment assumes there are not these common features generalizable to atheists in philosophy of mind.

the "soul" is synonymous with our psyche - an emergent property of our nervous and endocrinal system. Memory, emotions, consciousness, mind - all properties organism

"the "soul" is synonymous with our psyche"



"an emergent property of our nervous and endocrinal system. Memory, emotions, consciousness, mind - all properties organism"

"soulish features: qualia( our 5 senses), intentionality, rationality, are all illusory just like light can present color but no atom has the property of color. So too these soulish attributes just "appear" when a certain level of brain complexity arises."

So you gave the same definition and then changed out my "illusion" and "appear" for "emerge".

So you have given a third view known as property dualism as opposed to substance dualism and physcicalism.

However you are a rate breed for a atheist as most are physicalists since the 1970s.

Strange that you would be unfamiliar with that fact and still have the "confidence" to chide me for representing the general position of atheists researching philosophy of mind.

 

[Uber Genius]

I like how you put that.

Lol.

In physicalism it is illusory, not software.

She is representing property dualism not physicalism and is not aware that they are two separate views, or that she holds a minority one. Where would this software (information come from)?

 

[TheOldWays]

Where would this software (information come from)?

The sub conscious? Who knows. Reading Jung is the best way to dig into that.

 

[Eudaimonist]

However you are a rate breed for a atheist as most are physicalists since the 1970s.

Have there been polls done on this? I'm an atheist and both an emergentist and an aspect-dualist. It really isn't that uncommon, though I have no idea what percentages may apply.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Uber Genius]

Have there been polls done on this? I'm an atheist and both an emergentist and an aspect-dualist. It really isn't that uncommon, though I have no idea what percentages may apply.


eudaimonia,

Mark

In philosophy of mind, neuroscience, and evolutionary biology, physicalism has been the predominant theory both in research proceedings as well as debates with theists.

That said, in 1974 Thomas Nagel (who was and still is an atheist), published a book entitled, "What it is like to be a bat." This book examines the problems of reducing things like qualia, intentionality, and thought down to random, deterministic, particle processes.

Even other atheist philosophers took note and praised the book.

Fesser has a book worth reading:

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851684786

 

[Eudaimonist]

In philosophy of mind, neuroscience, and evolutionary biology, physicalism has been the predominant theory both in research proceedings as well as debates with theists.

That doesn't mean much to me as far as atheists-in-general go. You are talking about philosophers, scientists, and possibly atheist debaters. That is a tiny subset of atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Uber Genius]

That doesn't mean much to me as far as atheists-in-general go. You are talking about philosophers, scientists, and possibly atheist debaters. That is a tiny subset of atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Dd you forget the context of this discussion?

My claim was atheistic accounts of consciousness. These are found in philsophy of mind, neuroscience, and evolutionary biology as I already stated. By changing the context you create a strawman! I could care less what the average atheist thinks and have no idea how anyone could answer the question you've asked.

Were you trying to misrepresent me by misrepresenting the context? Or did you just make an honest mistake?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Were you trying to misrepresent me by misrepresenting the context? Or did you just make an honest mistake?

I was responding to this:

However you are a rate breed for a atheist as most are physicalists since the 1970s.

You seem to be referring to Jane the Bane above. That led me to think that you were speaking generally, not just about professional brain researchers.

If you weren't referring to Jane the Bane, I don't understand the meaning of that sentence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

"What it is like to be a bat."

 

[Uber Genius]

I was responding to this:

However you are a rate breed for a atheist as most are physicalists since the 1970s.

You seem to be referring to Jane the Bane above. That led me to think that you were speaking generally, not just about professional brain researchers.

If you weren't referring to Jane the Bane, I don't understand the meaning of that sentence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

How would anyone have that knowledge? Do atheists answer questions on the US Census about their views on philosophy of mind and the origin of consciousness?

So where else, other than the places I put in the context of my response, could one get a view about how atheists explain the origin of consciousness?

Until you or Jane can show me such a survey, rather than that the two of you don't hold that view, I will stick to what atheists have argued in the public square and research to support my claim.