The soul is not a real thing

Thank you for your timely response and I apologize for my untimely, clutch delivery. Now lets begin,BURDEN OF PROOF Without articulating it "on the nose", my entire first round introduction serves as justification for why it rests solely on Pro. You believe a definitive answer can be made. This is apparent because you clearly agree with the resolution. The resolution is a definitive statement. I, on the other hand, am Con in the respect that I believe a definitive statement cannot be made on such a topic. Thus the burden of proof on me pales in comparison to what is on you. This is my actual belief, not my "debate-relative belief." Some of you may know the fine line. Logic and science do not coincide with a soul. Philosophy quarrels never reach a definitive answer, just visit any philosophy convention. So to reach a definitive answer on this topic is impossible.However, I also do not like to disappoint by taking an evasive, easy route. I know you want a clash, as this is debate. So even though I could just hammer this point all day long and win, I will give you clash. A DEBATE WITHOUT FOUNDATIONI'd like point out the magnitude of my opponent's arguments. There is none. With so many blips and such lack of warrants, his arguments from Round 2 should be given very minor weight. Mega-antitheist ponders, "when someone has multiple personality disorder do they have multiple souls?"First, from what source do you surmise that the soul is connected to the personality. Personality and the actions of person hood are the products of the id, ego, and superego, as it is popularly theorized. http://psychology.about.com.... When someone has a disorder that is the result of a chemical imbalance or reaction to something traumatic in past. I know your trying to defile the sentiment of soul by pointing out something "absurd", but this is trying too hard in the wrong place.This is the problem I'm getting at with debating this topic. The definition of soul is difficult to even place. Carl Jung believed through his studies that the soul is more collective than people traditionally thought. The Tao te Ching highlighted the vagueness of the immaterial by calling it that "beyond the ten thousand things", "The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth", and "Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things!"http://terebess.hu.... When Buddha was asked about heaven and the afterlife, he famously pulled a leaf from the tree and said I only know but one thing from all these leaves and that is how to get away from suffering. Basically what I'm showing here is mega-antitheist's excessive ambition in his metaphysical assumptions. He or she is taking the unfathomable, in it's immaterial essence, for granted by assuming it's nature. Then based off that assumption he pokes holes in it, without admitting that his poking is predicated off of his convenient assumptions.SECONDMega-antitheist asserts, "When you say that the only way that you can know that a soul exists is when you are dead then why believe, there are no other fields that, that logic would be accepted."The answer to this is very simple. My upbringing caused me to become a person of faith by default: due to my environment. My environment fed me the belief. Anyone, though, is capable of spitting out bad food. My personal experience, through practice of this faith, propagated the belief and has slowly throughout the course of my years aggrandized the belief to be the foundation of my life. And that's what faith and spirituality come down to--personal experience. But such a term is and ought to be deemed invalid in the debate world, so in the debate-sense there is no fully satisfactory answer to be given. In the real-world, though, this is the obvious answer.THIRD Mega-antitheist's update, "Right now we have a good understanding of the brain and almost all emotions can be explained with chemical reactions"Agreed. Science has been making good strides. Any specific point ?Again, your making an assumption that soul is somehow connected to emotions. Then based off that assumption you refute. When Buddha left the forest, supposedly connecting to his soul after seven years of constant meditation, felt no connection to his father anymore. He felt no connection to his wife, whom he so loved. He felt no connection to his son. His humanly sentiment seemingly vanished. The basic emotions that plague our everyday temporal state of mind seemed not to apply to him.I tell this story only to show that accounts of the soul, factual or not, show the opposite that Mega-antitheist is trying to demonstrate. http://www.walmart.com... *In the introduction of the book, Eknath tells the story.*FOURTH Mega-antitheist attempts another connection without making the connection,"Darwinism leaving little room for the idea of a soul."Once again we read a blip and nothing more. How exactly does Darwinism leave no room for the soul? Were we expecting to find it on the left side of the lung for apes and then on right side for humans? Once again I'm left with a connect-less argument. But like a I said earlier I do not like to disappoint, as I know my opponent wants a clash. So I'll make the connection for him.If God then soul. If evolution then no God. If no God then no soul. Evolution means the biological world went through a change. Change does not discount God. The solar system went through an evolutionary process, the result was earth. This, though, is not highlighted as discounting God. But, when we discover that humans maybe had to go through a similar process, suddenly God does not exist. Everything we observe in the natural world works through the natural order of the laws of nature. The laws of nature is a mechanism. God is an agent. They are two different types of enforcement. This is similar to saying because my car drives, I do not exist. My car is the mechanism of movement but it requires the ignition which requires another level of enforcement--me. The two do not clash any sort of manner. They operate on two different levels.FIFTHMega-antitheist repeats himself, "Since we cannot measure a soul it is impossible to know that it exists and to believe it until it is proven wrong means that you have to believe everything, disbelief is the default position."Once again personal experience is the sensible, obvious answer to this. My experience, of course, true and valid to me, warrants my faith.Now This is an important word to note--faith.It is not definitive. It is not absolute. It is faith.I am not saying anywhere in this debate that the soul is definitively certain.I am upholding that it cannot be said that it definitively does not exist. Mega-antitheist upholds the absolute statement of the resolution, as such the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders.I believe I have adequately addressed his concerns, contentions, and blips to the point where his burden is still far being definitively satisfied.