Do you have a soul?

[Alcon]

A lot of definitions of "soul" are so abstract and bizarre that I can't even figure out what they mean.  I don't believe in a metaphysical soul, although "don't know" would also be an appropriate answer.  I just don't see much reason to believe in a soul, but I think virtually every honest atheist is effectively agnostic on the topic.

Also, Ben, not to get on your case, but of all the topics that justify explaining why you believe something, doesn't this seem like a self-evident one?

[Alcon]

The ability to live a life where we can ponder these questions tells me we must have a soul. To think, to live, to feel, to touch, to hear, to smell, to taste, to see... these things are, to me, extraordinarily deeper than crude science. Maybe we can quantify the "hows" of these things. We will never be able to quantify the state of actually experiencing them.

That alone is enough for me to believe in something more. Here, the Bible only offers superfluous details. Actually living offers the important ones.

Why do these phenomena suggest metaphysics any more than anything else does?  Believing something must be magic just because it causes a sense of wonder is why our ancestors worshiped a bunch of stuff we now know is explained naturally.  I'm not understanding why you presume metaphysics just because something is complex, or cool, or whatever it is that makes you assume metaphysics here.

Elaborate some?

[Alcon]

You do not show that two things are identical by showing that one gives rise to the other. You're again ignoring the difference between nomological supervenience and logical identity.

I did not cite your facts as evidence of mind-body dualism. The point is that (contrary to your earlier suggestion) they in no way favor reductive materialism over its rivals.

I'm a reasonably intelligent human being who's seen this debate more than a few times, and I'm not familiar with this terminology -- or sure why you're assuming your audience here is.

[Alcon]

It's the correct terminology when discussing the mind-body problem, though. I don't see what part of it you think is problematic?

I'm sure the terminology is fine!  I'm just unfamiliar with it, and I've seen this debate done before without it.  It's nobody's responsibility to dumb down the vocabulary for me, but I think there could be more (intelligent) participants in the debate if less esoteric terms were used.