West,
Maybe i am misunderstanding you but i still don't see much difference in what you are saying. To say the soul doesn't exist because it is made up is a bit like saying it doesn't exist because it doesn't exist. That's still basically a claim not an arguement.
The idea of a soul (or non-material life-attributable entity) is a theory to explain the mind-body problem and life force in philosophy. That is one reason it is "made up", not mere superstition.

"If religion was good then it would be impossible for it to cause harm"
I don't know where you get that idea from. It's preposterous. Things that are good can still cause harm, they would just cause less harm than good.
As for a "Religion" and Christianity committing crimes. That's impossible. People commit crimes. Belief systems are not causative agents, humans are.
But if you were to assert that a belief system will allow someone to commit crimes, I would argue that materialist and nihilistic belief systems are more oriented towards the permissiveness of harm than religions. There is an inherent irresponsibility for future generations in these doctrines in the idea that once you are dead you're no more and there are no consequences after death to bear for your actions.

Oliver,
I don't disagree with you. Religions do evolve and are influenced by environmental factors and indeed ignorance can play a part. But like you say this doesn't prove the non-existance of God nor the idea that there is more to existance than the material alone, which you could say is the fundamental seed of religion.
As for your musings on God, that comes down to an argument of what God actually is which is what i think the majority of God debates boil down to, an effort to define God and what He should or shouldn't be or do and various other parameters for Him to live up to or fail to live up to, if He did exist.

So Bugsy says: "a soul is what we make of it and does not exist in an objective reality. Character, attitudes, and wisdom are abstract concepts created by us to describe subjective experiences. They have no reality outside of our own thoughts."

Bugsy you purport character, attitudes and wisdom have no reality. So they are not real - try operating without consideration of them. Certainly not human! These are spirit realities, just because you cannot examine them under a microscope does not mean they do not exist. It is in this sphere that spiritual reality is expressed.

I ask do they exist? Do you have thoughts? Do you really have human experiences other than what you see and digest? Are the ideas essential to the human experience? Are they the essential reality of the human experience; or are you just an organic blob of predetermined and deteriating chemicals?

Where you go wrong here is that you are chasing ghosts Philo.

I will borrow from Robert Pirsig here for an example: While gravity may have already existed before Newton devised the Law of Gravity, the Law of Gravity itself did not exist. It is a ghost, an abstract, it has no physical reality.

Now, personality and character and wisdom etc are basically aspects of information exchange, they don't exist in some higher form or plane of existence. They are ghosts, concepts used to describe the process of information transferral, processing and decision making in our own brains. They are what are called emergent phenomena. Emergent phenomena arise to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts through information processing. Consider the computer, would you say that its software and functions exist in some higher plane of reality or that its basically just a collection of deteriorating chemicals? If you really think about it, neither is true and the dichotomy you propose is ridiculous.

Donnie "If religion was good then it would be impossible for it to cause harm" - What I am saying here is in context of the claim of god or a perfect supernatural entity. If god existed and was perfect then the system he requires would make it impossible for mistake or deviance.

Take deviancy for example. Harm in the name of jesus is not deviancy as far as practitioners of the cult of Christ are concerned. Nor are terrorists in Islam. Yes they are criticised by individuals but they dont risk rejection by either dogma or god.

Road laws are good and it is impossible for road laws to cause harm. All accidents creating harm are products of deviancy not the road laws. We drive on the left hand side of the road in full knowledge we will not have a head on collision with a driver who is driving within the requirements of road laws. If a driver deviates the driver if caught will lose their licence. A deviant driver faces rejection for deviation.

Many Christians would possibly argue that police are not everywhere , deviant drivers can argue in court ect but road laws are not god, are not supernatural and not magic as is neccesary for a god to be. God is supposed to be everywhere and the occult fairytale of the bible is supposed to be inspired by god. If god existed and was good and the bible were good like road legislation then deviancy would cease to exist. By good I mean it actually worked well. Trouble is Christians want it both ways talk the talk but not walk the walk, yet spiritually it makes not the slightest bit of difference. On what premise do they truley expect to be taken seriously? "If religion was good then it would be impossible for it to cause harm".

Bugsy you do prove you don't really exist, only the chemicals of your body exist. Obviously that is the only reality you know. Then stop trying to prove you don't have a quality of life outside the chemistry of your own body. Your world-view is just a fantasy it has no reality it does not affect anyone else outside of your body, you believe – so stop writing. Your ideas have no chemistry to be analysed - they do not exist. Just follow your own conclusions about reality.

For me the real identifiable you are not merely the organic chemistry of your body, or the things you possess. These things do not impress me! You are the imprint you make in society, revelation, education and relationships. These are the things others recognise about you. These things you are legally and morally held accountable for – your behaviour, your attitudes, and your effect on having lived as a man – are the actual person (soul). Since human life existed man has been making that accountable imprint, and it is on that imprint we are worthily congratulated or condemned not because you had a good specimen of a body.

Only these impressions can be identified and argued as really you. Your body is merely borrowed from the chemistry of the Universe and it is through that medium that you – the real you – is expressed. Of course you believe you are merely a blob of cellulous structures, evolving into non-designed no purpose nothingness – that all your reality happens in the chemistry of your own body. Be enlightened about life!

Computers have no purpose for being other than to assist information exchange. It is the information exchange for the purpose of enlightenment of attitude and action that makes the reality of the computer important. You argue the body is the only reality. I argue the body has no purpose other than to express the character, attitudes, actions, wisdom and revelation of the person. A deaf, dumb, blind paraplegic cannot express who they really are; nevertheless they are more than their body.

Sure Philo, the information patterns that make you up and manifest themselves as you may be what a soul is, I don't disagree with that.

But what happens when you "cease to be"? Many Christians would argue that your soul continues to exist, just somewhere else. This implies that is has a physical being of some sort. Information cannot exist entirely by itself, it needs a medium, just as you said our bodies are our mediums. But when you die, the only information that is left are just memories from other people and the things that were created while you existed. The actual information that comprises you, is gone. Non-existent. The disk is wiped.

If you think that there is another plane of existence where it goes to, that is where we differ.