now atheist discussions continuation blog: ->  

in some blog we tried to show that epistemologically the soul/spirit concept is incorrect type concept. 

- we now try to materialize the idea sets that why we are atheists and we think religions are not true.

 --- for first idea: souls concept is illogical -->

        we tried to analyze what/why is that. 

            We seen that aha i confused nomalist and nominalist literals whilst discussing that i think. (or were it called nominalist? I really have no idea right now)

We seen that nomalist systems has complexities defined by their integrated dynamics systems added/multiplied complexity behaviour.  For such systems there the traditional cartesian thought method of platonistic method do not work. It is easily deducable that the soul concept depends on platonistic philosophy cartesian philosophy basis.  (From ancient Roman times) So, possibly coming from the platonistic thought tradition,  soul concept to define mind, is actually an incorrect cartesian thinking method.

Why? -> cause cartesian systems only makes sense in building hypothethical models of surrounding world with reversing direction of specialization to abstract right? 

So, does such thought tradition compatible with integrated complex systems of interconnected complex systems dynamic systems behaviour? of course not. 

I mean in physics we model the QFT side with quark like concepts right? which a form of abstraction for a possible modeling.  but quark then is expected to have a corresponding physical realm. right? so what does quark abstraction represent? -> it represents solely a quark physical realism unit. ok?

so what this tradition is then used to: create various abstraction models and choose which one is more suited to understand universe around us.

in this aspect, we usually do build cartesian system by reducing specialization to find units of abstraction. that which aggregate dynamics creates more complex systems. although gauge has some twist on that to have reverse the direction of abstraction/specialization,

but again,  abstraction is to find by itself cohesive meaning creating a set or a property definitions or a modeling definition of dynamics by focusing separating an entire complex system with focusing only some cohesive meaning wise specialization part.  

hmm for some more wise, its to separate repeating/permutating behaviour part of systems and reduce the specialization with focusing to meaning that is defined by some abstract cohesive set or grp or category definition. 

its sometimes an effort whcih tries to reduce specialization degree and define with more economic model or convert to models which are more suited to other frameworks of science. 

its about finding the cohesion in specialization and a means to reduce the whole and define its reduced abstract definition which would either fully could generate the specialization or maybe not even in many abstraction examples. 

so abstraction, possibly science wise tradition rooted to Platonistic tradition,  and we observe in arts/science and every where alot,  (and even present in cave drawings as initial forms of abstraction) is innately related to brain's neural circuits/clusters an innate talent but has degrees of formal applicance craft level in various fields divergently either. 

So this abstraction being an innate skill, has created by then the Platonic thought tradition. 

then, I guess post Platon times, this has reflected its self such tradition's overly applied case being soul platonic entity against mind concept.  A definite case of platonic thought tradition.

But in reality, where this platonic cartesian tradition is actually useful? 

its not useful when you pseudo wise try to craft some fundemental concept from a interconnected complex systems.  I mean when you try to model an interconnected system you can not go cartesianist with simply defining a hypothethical platonic system behind it. cause the dyanmics of interconnected complex systems also behave by their summed complexity and its resultant dynamics. so its not something simply a platonic simplification behind it. there is even yet there existence of dynamic systems behaviour there. which is not any linked to any physical realm but pure maths caused by interaction interconnected dynamic systems differential equations/maths. So when complexities emerge from summed complexities, you can not go define such system with a cartesian approach that simply defines the entire system with lacking the dynamic systems aggregated added complex behaviours modeling without lacking it you definitely surely have an incomplete cartesian model. 

So we think original soul concept must have originated from Platonic thought tradition (cartesian thought tradition). and thats why we think its illogical since even omits the dynamic systems behaviour there or emerged new complex system, behaviour by aggregated dynamic systems behaviours there.

so we guess the soul concept entered to religions originally by Platonic tradition possibly. but by then then cartesian thinking were not very much developed methods having either. 

So this soul concept we dont get it. (We atheist people)

since its an abstraction that is incomplete and incorrectly setup.

that the other new definitions of soul which people think seems again really very illogical.

just if we think string theory wise nonknowledgeable amateur wise, 

- so lets take the most religions theory that souls continue to exist when people pass away. or reincarnate etc lots of such soul topics in various religions exist.

We definitely think this is very incorrect idea. Why? 

We think this is only wishful thinking added to religions. (to create continuum life time to infinity) I mean to think to continue after passing away.

cause when we think of various physics theorem wise, if there somehow e.g. in string theory wise, if dynamics of upper dimension were there present, whiich would directly be related to this dimension and upper dimension would have not enough complexity to have life emerge.  thereby the dimension we live in with its vast complexity would be the only dimension that life spawned as we know of, and when we pass away, would  something change in upper dimensions ? of course not. whatever happens in this dimension would have relatedness to upper dimension directly, so if we cease to exist in this string theory dimension, we dont anticipate a soul like entity being created from that via upper dimension. I mean in the end, in upper dimension we possibly continue to live in possible other life frames. but we when pass away, we dont create a soul that becomes an entity of another dimension or so. Thats unfortunatley only wishful thinking reflection of the most important issue of every human (i mean continuity wish and to have not life cease wish)  and we anticipate that somehow merged with Platonic thought tradition to create the soul concept. which also gives conceptual wise a relief to humans to continue even after passing away type thought system it is. but in physics side it has no correspondence. Its rather wishful thinking reflected to religions creativity. 

So wish we atheists could convince all religious people to not believe to their religions via this blog. soul concept is illogical. it does not have correspondence in physics. 

Wish we atheists could convinced all religious people to understand they are believing to stories crafted by creativity and by synchronicity related interpretations but rather human creativity/story telling and some ancient Roman thought  traditions like Platonic thinking tradition to merge to define common religious concepts present in many religions afterwards. 

So bad news -> there is no soul concept. when we pass away we dont continue.  Soul concept is yet again a wishful thinking type stuff. but in reality in physics side has none correspondence.

Upon such bad news, also good news -> we going to invent living to forever tech maybe by 2027's mid.

So wish we atheists wished to share our perspective that we believe to, thatr religions are stories crafted and but just stories, but misinterpretation along with very human creativity.  Wish we could open your eyes that religions are story telling/cultural concepts invented by merging ancient times thought patterns (e.g. platonic thought model) and cosmogeny wise models all merged creatively with creative story telling. but nothing very most correct(I mean by that actually,  misinterpretations) (rather creative misinterpretations alike (e.g. of interpretation of universe, interpretations of synchronicity concepts etc along with merging it with by those times thought patterns e.g. Platonic thought models alike. )