You confuse "assumption" with "conclusion". The conclusion is that consciousness comes from the brain, due to the fact that ther has been no evidence for the soul. In my case that conclusion is not one to beliieve in but merely the conclusion one reaches for practical purposes. Your response is mistaken through omission of what it logically implies. You fail to grasp, at least you respond in a manner that demonstrates a lack of grasping, that "not eating an apple" is not The same as "eating something that is not an apple". Until you learn to accommodate in your responses the position of those that are simply "not eating", and address them accordingly, you are arguing on a mistaken assumption about their view. To understand or even discuss the properties of something that is claimed to be real there must be some means of actually establishing those properties, so that they can be checked, verified etc. In the absence of that, any discussion about the properties of a soul are simply discussions about a literary device, no more meaningful than discussing the magic of Harry Potter. Thats because they are not claimed as existing, only as possibilities that seem to fit the evidence and the maths. Such discussions are usefully about what is possible to know about them given the reality in which we live. They also often drift into unsubstantiable wishful thinking. You mean other than where the OP asks for responses from those that believe the soul to exist? The OP sets the case that some people do make such claims. If you want to move the discussion away from being able to provide evidence, then we are simply discussing what has been written about the soul, and there should be nothing beyond that that implies actual existence. Are you able to do that? It was where the discussion had headed. We could, but the discussion had already moved on to matters of evidence. ??? Maybe that is where you struggle, then, in over-thinking and missing the obvious. Where have I said that the soul "therefore doesn't exist"? This is simply your go-to claim about the agnostic position. As said, it is tedious when that is all you ever come up with. So you revert to semantics. Fair enough. For the rest of us, if someone claims belief in something religious then they are claiming the reality of that thing. So that we can be sure that any conclusion is truthful and meaningful, beyond simple opinion. In the absence of evidence, why believe anything as true. If you consider this to be non-thinking then your mindset truly is alien to me. Indeed. Anything else requires similar justification, which has not been provided with regard the soul. And if in this matter you simply wish to discuss the magic of Harry Pottr, I'll leave you to it. Far too much for my non-thinking ways.