IS all the debate in R&S proof of God?

Question

OK, the debate between atheists and believers has been going on for a while, and will continue until the Second Coming, where God is reveled to us (if He exists, of course)

However, atheists are usually strictly scientific beings, and do not believe anything that cannot be proven, Therefore, I would say that Atheists do not believe we have a soul, as anything other than a bag of flesh and organs would be proof of the supernatural. After all, if there was no God, who would have put the soul there?

However, if we had no souls, and our physical beings were all that consisted of Man, then why would we be having this argument? Our brains would not even consider the possibility of God, and we would all be thinking practically alike, because the only differences between humans would be varying amounts of chemicals in the brain. So, we would all be different, but much more similar than we are today, because now our soul dictates “who” we are, rather than our DNA.

SO, just the idea that the debate over God exists is, in my opinion, proof of God’s existence. Atheists, what do you think?

Answer 1

The fallacy of this argument could quickly be displayed by applying it to the Greek debate, particularly between Epicurus and theist Greeks, about the existence of gods.

The fallacy is that if you can conceive of something, it must exist. There are innumerable examples of this not being true.

What makes you think if I write a powerful enough computer program, it couldn't argue on behalf of theism? Because I could probably write something that would pass the Turing Test for Y!A.

Answer 2

You're confusing soul and consciousness. Athiests believe in the existance of consciousness - at least thier own, in the most extreme case of solipsism - and the capacity for rationale thought and questioning. So, no, the existance or non-existance of the soul has no bearing on the nature of human beings while they are alive - it is merely a philosophical construct that can be used to possit a non-physical existance for the individual that might transcend death.

What the long debate really proves is the non-proveability of the existance or non-existance of a being defined the way that God is defined. Not to mention the similar status of the soul and other supernatural concepts that have no perceptible or detectible or otherwise testable effects upon the world.

Answer 3

That is a hypothesis. There are others that explore why people might believe even though there is no God in reality.

One postulates that it is due to the way our brains our wired to perceive patterns, even when they do not really exist:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_6_59/ai_57800244

Another that belief gave early people's a survival advantage and that whether or not its still advantage we or many still carry the gene for it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1590776,00.html

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/09/why-religion.php

I think I debate it because it affects my life a great deal, especially fundamentalism. I want my child to learn real science in school. I don't want religion forced down my throat at every turn, or the religious right legislating how I live my life. If people kept it to themselves I think I would be content to keep my own non belief more to myself as well. I think end time theology is not only bad theology but not a great motivator for humanity to put a lot of effort into making this world work.

Answer 4

No, I don't think the fact that we can debate an idea means that your view of it is the right view, versus all others.

Actually as a spiritual Atheist I do believe we have a soul, so your arguement fell apart for me in paragraph 2.

We are all much more alike than we are different. It only seems we aren't because we focus on the differences. For example, out of the hundreds of languages available to us, we are now communicating in English.

My 3 year old likes to talk to the Sun and explains to me how it goes home to its family every night. He tells me all about its family and what they have for dinner and that they read stories before bed. He could create a whole sun-worshipping religion out of his ideas.

He and I could debate his ideas. We share the same DNA, we have similar brain chemistry and are extremely alike. That does not mean his perception of reality is correct (nor I mine, come to that).

This is the same thing.

Answer 5

Buddhism also denies the existence of a "soul." And why would you want a "soul" anyway? Think about it. If you're an individual "soul" (picture it as a ball of light or whatever you want) how can you ever be ONE with God, especially when God is all encompassing. I'd prefer to think of myself and my fellow human beings and all beings as small waves within a larger ocean( The idea of God has been around longer than you and I and will continue to be even long after we're gone from this Earth. Some might say God is control. If people didn't believe in a God then they would do whatever they wanted. Religion teaches us morals, but in some cases they use fear to do so. Fear of the law of fear of going to Hell instead of Heaven. Your example of why we all "think alike" is not based in science, fact or reason, you're just using it to prop up your own beliefs with weak evidence. When if you actually stopped to consider evidence contrary to your beliefs, you may change your mind. Heck, you may even have to admit that you were...wrong...But you won't, so don't worry about it. I agree that there's a God, I just prefer to think of myself as being one with Him/Her and my fellowing beings.
"Who" we are is dictated by nature and nurture, by our environment and by those who raise us.

Answer 6

Apparently evolution must have a sense of humor then.

Evolutionists would simply argue that we have many "bi-products" of evolution that have nothing to do with survival, like developed societies, history, culture, art, justice, morality, science, philosophy, transcendence of environment, a sense of self-awareness, and most importantly; religion and knowledge of God.

So apparently the various manifestations of the essence of our being have nothing to do with the atheist's modern creation myth.

But youre right, quite a lot of argument for something that doesnt exist!!! I would think any reasonable person if not convinced about the existence of God would certainly be open to the possiblity being that they cant possibly fathom how life and the cosmos first were created and the fact that they cant disprove him. They disbelieve though not for their lack of knowledge, but their lack of faith. God has proved himself over and over to countless generations but we still have generations that rise up and deny him.

Answer 7

I love how you actually sound/write like your picture!
Anyone else noticed that?
One of my favorite movies is Good, Bad & Ugly and
I nicknamed my cats after the movie when I
had three of them (my wild outdoor cat was Tuco!)

Anyway, that said, Yes, this is the argument I have
been trying to find words for - eloquently put!
100% agree!
I see you have been thinking about it for a while.
Great, great, great - Yea!

Actually, this is a great debate/theory!
Language is asigning words to actual things!
Anyway, this universe is a closed system,
for one thing, DNA info can only be combined
differently - no information can be added.
Ecc. says: "nothing new..."
We can only dream and imagine about
combinations of our experiences - there
is nothing totally new.
A computer is not new - it's a combination
of things already known!
The idea of spirit can't be a combination
of things in physical life - it's a completely
separate thing!

Answer 8

Mr Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Answer 9

Soul Definition

The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.

The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.

The disembodied spirit of a dead human.

Answer 10

"However, if we had no souls, and our physical beings were all that consisted of Man, then why would we be having this argument?"

i can't explain how ridiculous such a statement sounds. the ability to think and reason has nothing to do with souls