I’d ask for a definition of “soul” beyond the generic response of “use a dictionary”.

Some equate the term with psyche or mind, others with consciousness or self. If the person is espousing a more “spiritual” take - ideas of some proposed “afterlife,” or eternal conscious being, then ask them if that is what they mean.

Basically I can accept the term “soul” used in some ways and not in others.

They should probably call you an “atheist” then. Because it is not that you don’t believe X or Y you just haven’t found the need to propose such supernatural imaginings. Note: the term “atheist” was not coined by people who had no “spiritual” inclinations, it was a term used for political means to ridicule or slander (that has mostly backfired though! Haha!)

You could ask them if they believe in Santa. If they say “of course not” then perhaps you can ask them if they ever did and what it was that changed their mind. Such types generally don’t like being questioned though so don’t expect too much ;)

you just haven’t found the need to propose such supernatural imaginings. — I like sushi

Well thats different than I put it, because it includes a bias.

According to theists, I am an atheist, true. But Im not.

I don't comprehend the necessity for an excluded middle between the theist and atheist positions. Almost everyone has an opinion, it seems, but I dont comprehend the necessity for that either. Why can't I just not have an opinion?

According to theists, I am an atheist, true. But Im not.

So you believe in a “deity”? Do you believe in an “afterlife”?

If the answer to both of these questions is “No” then you’re not a theist. If it is “Yes” it is for you and such folk to sort out what you mean by both or either of these terms. The “Soul” bit usually fits into the “afterlife” business side of things - but there are obviously a variety of views within this that sound more or less ‘supernatural’ to some degree or another.

What does ‘soul’ mean to you? Do you believe in that meaning? From my understanding religious (and non-religious) beliefs require a degree of ‘faith’ - I’d say this is tied into aesthetic sensibility toward an array of possible ideas and explanations (some more vague than others, and some illusionary/delusionary).

So you believe in a “deity”? Do you believe in an “afterlife”? — I like sushi

I dont have an opinion. People talk about these things as if one must have an opinion. I dont, one way or the other.

You’re an atheist then. Get it? You’re not bothered about it!

If you were an agnostic you’d THINK about it and be undecided. From what you’ve said you’re not interested in this, but curious about what these terms mean.

In modern times the term “atheist” has gotten confused with the political “atheist movement” which was taken up to defend education in schools. Since that we’ve had a number of people calling themselves “atheists” when they are in fact “anti-theist” - which is different.

Atheists don’t go around shouting that they are atheists because, like you, it is not a topic that interests them as they spend their mental energy on other topics.

I just don't have an opinion on it. Is there a name for this kind of position? — ernestm

Within discussion, an opinion is unavoidable.
Otherwise, the stance which takes no sides, is simple acceptance.

I say ‘the soul’ simply denotes the totality of the being - talents, inclinations, vices and flaws, history and destiny. The whole enchilada. That’s it.

I would agree. Granting the conception of soul doesn’t require an opinion concerning the possibility of its existence. That would be a separate, additional, cognition.

I like the title question of this thread...using "opinion." I had high hopes for it. But it, and the responses, quickly devolved into more of the "believe" and "belief" bullshit.

The questions are, "Do you "believe" (in) X...?"...

...when in a rigorous philosophical discussion the question should almost always be phrased, "Is your guess about X..."

Figure it out, People.

It is an important concept.

Grok it...run with it.

Mww
660
↪ernestm


I would agree. Granting the conception of soul doesn’t require an opinion concerning the possibility of its existence. That would be a separate, additional, cognition. — Mww

It would also be unnecessary.

Why in the world would anyone doubt the POSSIBILITY of its existence.

Of course it is possible. If one does not grant that...one is essentially saying it is impossible.

The additional cognition is necessary. Otherwise, the soul remains merely a conception, which is an analytic judgement, without regard to its reality, which is a synthetic judgement.

An opinion on the existence of the soul is entirely predicated on the cognition of a synthetic judgement. No judgement, no opinion.

I answered the OP’s question precisely.

If you want something else what is it? They said they weren’t “agnostic” because that is an opinion and that they have no opinion about the concept “god” or an “afterlife” - as for “soul” the crack in the door is saying “I cannot know” to which I would say “Cannot know what?”

If they simply don’t care for this then we’re in the field of atheism - as in not being interested in these kinds if questions.

If you have something you wish share about the term “soul” go ahead. I doubt the OP would be upset.

— Mww

I do not know...is more than an opinion.

It is the unvarnished truth...without attaching a guess.

In any case, why in the world would anyone doubt the POSSIBILITY of its existence?

Do you know of some reason to consider "the soul" (whatever it is) to be an impossibility?

If not...then it is possible. (We both know it is POSSIBLE.)

You disregard the “Whatever it is?”

I like sushi
777
↪Frank Apisa
I answered the OP’s question precisely.

If you want something else what is it? They said they weren’t “agnostic” because that is an opinion and that they have no opinion about the concept “god” or an “afterlife” - as for “soul” the crack in the door is saying “I cannot know” to which I would say “Cannot know what?”

If they simply don’t care for this then we’re in the field of atheism - as in not being interested in these kinds if questions.

If you have something you wish share about the term “soul” go ahead. I doubt the OP would be upset. — I like sushi

In your case, I seriously question your specific definition of "atheism."

Atheism means so many things it is virtually useless as a descriptor...but to suggest it means, "I do not really care" is taking it further away from useful than most other descriptions.

As far as "I cannot know" or "It cannot be known"...that is a step too far for me. I seldom use a descriptor, but when I do, I use "agnostic." I have always argued that "agnostic" really should never mean "that a god exists is unknowable." It at least is POSSIBLE for one to know.

I like sushi
779
↪Frank Apisa
You disregard the “Whatever it is?” — I like sushi

I didn't disregard it...I mentioned it.

It matters not what it is for the purposes of what I said about "it."

ASIDE: I'm not nuts about some sushi, but California rolls (barely qualify as sushi) I am nuts about. My wife and I go to a Chinese buffet...and I spend a majority of my time at the sushi bar...nigiri, ahi.

I least I made an effort to define what I was talking about. To be an atheist is not to believe in, and/or consider the thought of, a deity and/or an afterlife as particularly noteworthy.

Deity means some omnipotent conscious being overarching all reality - ergo an incomprehensible concept (of no use other than negatively). An “afterlife” would be against what we commonly call “life” and would not be, as some frame it, “a life after life” (which is nothing more than wordplay). As for some continuation of consciousness once I’m dead? Seems like the most redundant question there is given that I’ll find out sooner or later (or not at all). I’m certainly not going to live my life according to some unfounded belief in some form of ‘ascension’ because it seems to me a way of saying ‘this isn’t good enough for me and/or I’m better than this life’ which I find delusional, deranged or possibly simply egotistical leading one to live their lives as a vacuous event.

As for “soul” ... I have nothing to say unless someone cares to define it beyond “y’know, a ‘soul’, like when you die your mind continues!” In which case, see above for “afterlife”.

Basically if you cannot define what you’re calling “possible” or “impossible” then what the hell does that mean? Nothing at all. This is because it is like me saying Holding up purple duck in the yerrerish of dubble, easterly of wicksin is POSSIBLE! It doesn’t mean anything.

This is always the problem. That is not to say some people haven’t thought through what they mean by the terms “soul” and “god” it just appears they take it for granted, quite often, that everyone should understand what they mean without any serious, in depth explication.

So, what do you mean when you say “soul” bring possible? Do you know?

I just dont have an opinion on it. Is there a name for this kind of position? — ernestm

It depends on why you don't have an opinion on it. If "agnostic" doesn't fit, and you're at least somewhat familiar with the notion (otherwise "unfamiliar" would be the term), probably "uninterested" or "apathetic" would do it.

I do not know...is more than an opinion. — Frank Apisa

While this is certainly correct, the OP asked about nothing more than the absence of opinion.

I like sushi
780
↪Frank Apisa
I least I made an effort to define what I was talking about. To be an atheist is not to believe in, and/or consider the thought of, a deity and/or an afterlife as particularly noteworthy.

Deity means some omnipotent conscious being overarching all reality - ergo an incomprehensible concept (of no use other than negatively). An “afterlife” would be against what we commonly call “life” and would not be, as some frame it, “a life after life” (which is nothing more than wordplay). As for some continuation of consciousness once I’m dead? Seems like the most redundant question there is given that I’ll find out sooner or later (or not at all). I’m certainly not going to live my life according to some unfounded belief in some form of ‘ascension’ because it seems to me a way of saying ‘this isn’t good enough for me and/or I’m better than this life’ which I find delusional, deranged or possibly simply egotistical leading one to live their lives as a vacuous event.

As for “soul” ... I have nothing to say unless someone cares to define it beyond “y’know, a ‘soul’, like when you die your mind continues!” In which case, see above for “afterlife”.

Basically if you cannot define what you’re calling “possible” or “impossible” then what the hell does that mean? Nothing at all. This is because it is like me saying Holding up purple duck in the yerrerish of dubble, easterly of wicksin is POSSIBLE! It doesn’t mean anything.

This is always the problem. That is not to say some people haven’t thought through what they mean by the terms “soul” and “god” it just appears they take it for granted, quite often, that everyone should understand what they mean without any serious, in depth explication.

So, what do you mean when you say “soul” bring possible? Do you know? — I like sushi

I do not know what a "soul" is...nor do I give a rat's ass.

It is SOMETHING.

And unless you are saying that SOMETHING is impossible...

...it is POSSIBLE. By definition...that SOMETHING is possible.

Sorry you do not get that. Perhaps in Philosophy 102, though.

Mww
662

I do not know...is more than an opinion. — Frank Apisa


While this is certainly correct, the OP asked about nothing more than the absence of opinion. — Mww

You are correct.

And my answer would be to disregard the use of a word or descriptor for the position...

...and simply state the position.

I just do not have an opinion or a guess is valid.

My statement about my personal "agnosticism" uses that (I prefer not to use the descriptor agnostic)::

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

I also hold general disregard for personal descriptors, and in this particular case, I hold with no opinion which would benefit from having one.

Maybe I’m missing SOMETHING or maybe you are.

I’m not into evasive wordplay. The bottomline is you don’t care to outline what you’re talking about, but insist it is “something”. Like I’ve already stated wwhsnsusuus is also POSSIBLE according to how you use language. I don’t use language in that way.

I get that you appear to treading water. Why? If you make a claim that something is possible fair enough. My question is whether or not “soul” is something anymore than ygghjyff is something? If both are “something” then both are “possible” according to your line of reasoning.

Where have I gone wrong?

It looks very much like you’re trying to entice me down an epistemic rabbit hole. Not interested.

I like sushi
781
↪Frank Apisa
Maybe I’m missing SOMETHING or maybe you are.

I’m not into evasive wordplay. The bottomline is you don’t care to outline what you’re talking about, but insist it is “something”. Like I’ve already stated wwhsnsusuus is also POSSIBLE according to how you use language. I don’t use language in that way.

I get that you appear to treading water. Why? If you make a claim that something is possible fair enough. My question is whether or not “soul” is something anymore than ygghjyff is something? If both are “something” then both are “possible” according to your line of reasoning.

Where have I gone wrong?

It looks very much like you’re trying to entice me down an epistemic rabbit hole. Not interested. — I like sushi

I am not trying to entice you anywhere.

We all have an idea of what a "soul" is.

Use any notion you choose...

...and unless you are telling me that particular one is IMPOSSIBLE...

...I am saying IT IS POSSIBLE.

I will say that same thing for every particular definition of "soul" you give until you run out of new ones.

I'm not treading any water. I am posting something that I think cannot be logically refuted...which is the reason you seem to be picking an argument rather than actually challenging what I am saying.

Unless you are saying the notion of "soul" is IMPOSSIBLE under any reasonable definition of "soul"...

...then it IS possible.

Picking an argument? What are you asking me to refute? You don’t appear to have strung a single coherent thought together.

I asked repeatedly what the term “soul” means to you and you evaded, and will continue to do so no doubt?

Anyway, can you explain this:

Unless you are saying the notion of "soul" is IMPOSSIBLE under any reasonable definition of "soul"...

...then it IS possible.

Which basically says the possibility of the impossible is possible? I’m not quite sure what you term as “reasonable” given you don’t seem inclined to hold to, or express, any particular view on anything.

I can think of a great many things that are impossible. An example would be that it is impossible for something to be both possible and impossible at the sane time. Generally speaking it is illogical to live by the view that because something is possible we should adhere to it; especially if you say everything is possible, which would mean you’d somehow try to adhere to contradictory claims - which is ironically an impossibility.

See what I mean? I certainly have no idea what you’re trying to say. I am not being argumentative, I’m simply intrigued by the staunch evasion and what it is you think I’m missing? It is possible my view of what you’re saying is wrong - which is no big deal - or that what you’re saying makes no sense, which should concern you more than me I’d say.

What were you hoping from the thread? What is your point, or the point you were hoping for? Can you express it so we can start afresh here or elsewhere?

Graham Oppy, atheist philosopher, gives the term “innocent” for those who have never considered the question of whether God exists, and so can’t properly be considered atheist or agnostic.

I like sushi
782
↪Frank Apisa
Picking an argument? What are you asking me to refute? You don’t appear to have strung a single coherent thought together.

I asked repeatedly what the term “soul” means to you and you evaded, and will continue to do so no doubt?

Anyway, can you explain this:

Unless you are saying the notion of "soul" is IMPOSSIBLE under any reasonable definition of "soul"...

...then it IS possible.


Which basically says the possibility of the impossible is possible? I’m not quite sure what you term as “reasonable” given you don’t seem inclined to hold to, or express, any particular view on anything. — I like sushi

Oh, shit. You do not know how to read with comprehension.

My bad. I thought you did.

Maybe we could discuss TV shows.

I can think of a great many things that are impossible. An example would be that it is impossible for something to be both possible and impossible at the sane time. Generally speaking it is illogical to live by the view that because something is possible we should adhere to it; especially if you say everything is possible, which would mean you’d somehow try to adhere to contradictory claims - which is ironically an impossibility.

Any five year old can think of things that are impossible. I named several in earlier posts.

That has nothing to do with whether a "soul" is or is not possible.

You truly do not understand how to argue coherently.

How about TV programs?

See what I mean? I certainly have no idea what you’re trying to say. I am not being argumentative, I’m simply intrigued by the staunch evasion and what it is you think I’m missing? It is possible my view of what you’re saying is wrong - which is no big deal - or that what you’re saying makes no sense, which should concern you more than me I’d say.

Here we can agree COMPLETELY.

You do not have any idea of what I am saying (not trying to say)...because you either have your mind closed or you are not bright enough to discuss this issue.

What were you hoping from the thread? What is your point, or the point you were hoping for? Can you express it so we can start afresh here or elsewhere?

Okay...let's take it piece by piece. Here is the first salient point I made...you tell me what your objections are to it. LETS STICK TO THIS.

The title of this thread is, "What if one has no opinion on the existence of the soul? "

I noted that after the title...instead of talking about "opinions"...people made a change and started talking about "beliefs."

Are you saying I am wrong about the title...or about the changes I observed before I made my posting?

The OP was more than the title. Explicitly the mention of being labelled an “agnostic” and not having an opinion is not to be concerned about said item. In the mind of the the person posing the question of “agnostic?” they are mistaken.

I made the point, made by a number of other people over time, that an atheist doesn’t believe in a “deity” and/or “afterlife”. You don’t have to have an opinion NOT to belief in something other people know of. Clearly if I had no concept of a “cat” I wouldn’t believe in a cat. The scale of believability comes with comprehension.

“People,” myself at least, started talking response to the OP not merely the title. If you think to say “I don’t have an opinion about war,” our opinion is stated in that utterance. That is your opinion about ‘war’ is that you don’t care to address it NOT that you don’t understand what war is.

If the person says “I have no opinion about the existence of the soul” they are either questioning the point of addressing what ‘existence’ means or ‘soul’ - or perhaps ‘belief’?

Oh, shit. You do not know how to read with comprehension.

My bad. I thought you did.

Apparently not because I was being generous in my reading of this:

Unless you are saying the notion of "soul" is IMPOSSIBLE under any reasonable definition of "soul"...

...then it IS possible.

I’ll try again. Maybe you mean the “idea of the soul” is impossible? You’ll have to give an example of what is or isn’t a “reasonable definition” ... I am not saying ‘ideas’ are impossible, but I would argue that it is more than possible to believe you have a ‘reasonable definition’ when you don’t. We’ve all been there at some point in our lives where we realise a certain understanding of some given concept we’ve been carry around was actually rather facile.

Bear with me. Doing my best here! If the vitriol helps keep spitting it out too (genuinely no problem there)

I like sushi
783
↪Frank Apisa
The OP was more than the title. Explicitly the mention of being labelled an “agnostic” and not having an opinion is not to be concerned about said item. In the mind of the the person posing the question of “agnostic?” they are mistaken.

I made the point, made by a number of other people over time, that an atheist doesn’t believe in a “deity” and/or “afterlife”. You don’t have to have an opinion NOT to belief in something other people know of. Clearly if I had no concept of a “cat” I wouldn’t believe in a cat. The scale of believability comes with comprehension.

“People,” myself at least, started talking response to the OP not merely the title. If you think to say “I don’t have an opinion about war,” our opinion is stated in that utterance. That is your opinion about ‘war’ is that you don’t care to address it NOT that you don’t understand what war is.

If the person says “I have no opinion about the existence of the soul” they are either questioning the point of addressing what ‘existence’ means or ‘soul’ - or perhaps ‘belief’?

Oh, shit. You do not know how to read with comprehension.

My bad. I thought you did.


Apparently not because I was being generous in my reading of this:

Unless you are saying the notion of "soul" is IMPOSSIBLE under any reasonable definition of "soul"...

...then it IS possible.


I’ll try again. Maybe you mean the “idea of the soul” is impossible? You’ll have to give an example of what is or isn’t a “reasonable definition” ... I am not saying ‘ideas’ are impossible, but I would argue that it is more than possible to believe you have a ‘reasonable definition’ when you don’t. We’ve all been there at some point in our lives where we realise a certain understanding of some given concept we’ve been carry around was actually rather facile.

Bear with me. Doing my best here! If the vitriol helps keep spitting it out too (genuinely no problem there) — I like sushi

I really hoped we could stick with just one thing. But...to accommodate you, I will reply to one holf of this here...and take the other half to a second responding post.

You seem to be having more trouble than you should with with my comment:

"Unless you are saying the notion of "soul" is IMPOSSIBLE under any reasonable definition of "soul"...

...then it IS possible."

But that essentially is a tautology.

I am saying that if a thing is not IMPOSSIBLE...by definition, it is POSSIBLE.


So unless you are saying that the notion of "soul" is IMPOSSIBLE...by definition it is possible.

What could possibly be your problem with that?

(Allow me this, and I am not being a wise-ass here: Is English your first language or not?

Now...the second part.

The title of this thread is: "What if one has no opinion on the existence of the soul?"

That excited me. It was using "opinion" rather than the all too often used, "believe."

Most of the time, threads like this are titled a variation of, "Do you BELIEVE in a soul?" (Which I consider horseshit.)

But asking people for their opinions (or guesses or estimates) on an issue like this...is worthwhile.

I do not make a guess...or offer an opinion. I, like the OP, prefer not to do so. I, unlike the OP, could not care less about a word to describe that preference.

BUT...when I read the first paragraph of the thread...the mood was switched from "what is your opinion" to "what is your 'belief" about this."

I was disappointed.

Go back. Read my comment. You will see that is what I was saying.

If you are saying you disagree that I was disappointed...then we have a problem

If you agree that I most likely was disappointed (from what I said)...then we have no problem.