I prefer science; with its reproducible results, peer reviewed data, and quantifiable knowledge to wishful thinking and metaphysical nonsense.

It's too easy for people who subscribe to magical thinking to point out the errors of science from the past, but it was science not magic that corrected those mistakes, and while science hasn't learned everything, it is science not supernatural fairytales that will expand our understanding of reality.

Evidence is what separates fact from fantasy.

Do not confuse emotions with science... emotions are important for mental health - but gravity is not. Understanding science could save us from destroying ourselves and our planet - yet emotions get in the way and as emotional beings - we are capable of destroying ourselves.

Science does not have all the answers but its main purpose is to find answers and not just make up shit so we feel better about ourselves. Science helps to dispel antiquated notions like the Earth being shaped like a plate that rides on the backs of elephants that are standing on the back of a giant cosmic turtle that swims through the ether of space. It also helps to dispel imaginary friends like Zeus, Baal and Allah and Jehovah.

Two people walked through a desert, the first wished for a garden and cried, the second gazed in wonder at the marvels which are sand dunes.

The main reason people love science, reason and the material world, is because they are both beautiful and wonderful. Those who seek after meanings beyond the visible world merely show their limitations and lack of appreciation, it is they whose powers fail of appreciation fail, not that of those who love what they have. And in the end even worse, they show the bad taste of the half grown adolescent, weeping because the childhood illusion their parents indulged them with, that they were the center of and most important thing in the universe, is no more.

Before speculating about life it is useful to have one.

"Human souls need all this..." Yes...just like some people need bull shit.

Scientists don't think that things that can't be proven are of no importance. In fact it is opposite. They have curious minds but don't take things at face value. They remain sceptical until some evidence exists. Other wise you may as well got back to your god, tarot cards and astrology.

What makes you believe in souls? No evidence has been found as yet but the brain is so complex and there is still much to learn. There is no mystery about beauty or love.The same neurons light up in brain scans of people who are exposed to beautiful pictures or pics of loved ones. The neurons send messages that cause a release of dopamine (the feel good hormone). Then we experience pleasure. NO mysterious soul required.

And what has trust to do with scientists? People would be fools to trust everyone. One earns trust and yes we can still be let down because we are flawed, imperfect animals. Science has certainly examined the brains of psychopathic liars.

If we believe in a natural world that has a natural answer to things, what is wrong with that? It's less conceited and more logical than thinking souls are something unique to each person. Do you believe souls have an afterlife?

Science encompasses the body of knowledge gathered through the systemic accumulation of facts by careful observation and experimentation. This body of knowledge is far from complete and may never be finished. We cannot completely rule out things we don't have proof of, but claims without facts supporting them can hardly be relied on as truthful either. If we look back in history at some of the explanations for phenomenon that even some of the most brilliant minds of tneir day believed, we might be more than surprised. They may have lacked the tools,, the insight, or subject to prejudices to be able to form more correct explanations. The same may be true today of some things commonly believed but lacking the means to solve the mystery.

I find I tend to be more in mind set of your "Prove it or shut up" category. I don't have a problem with someone speculating about things we don't know about, but when they cross over to trying to tell me certain things are true that can't be are aren't proven or even have facts to support them, then I lose interest real fast and often become impatient. It's ok with me if we don't or can't know cerain things, but I would prefer we be clear when we are speculating or fantasizing and when we are talking facts.

The concepts you are talking about here are limited to people who aren't scientists.

People who think that science has all the answers aren't scientists. Science wouldn't exist if it had all the answers. Science is the exploration of the lack of answers. Science, like everything else, is based in faith or belief in something that isn't proven. Scientists begin with enough faith in a hypothesis to test it and find out if it's true.

Those who shout "prove it or shut up" also aren't scientists. Scientists are always exploring things that aren't proven to find out what is true and what is not. Scientists are scientists because they are talking about unproven things.

Scientists can and have explored both the physical and metaphysical realms. Science has proven all sorts of things, many of them conflicting. Those who feel things can be proven conclusively and adhere only to a specific set of scientific results don't understand science.

Finally, scientists aren't just people who go to work in labs and experiment using expensive high tech equipment. A scientist is anyone who questions the world around them and performs experiments to understand it. Everyone can be a scientist. Those who are will understand that there's far more we don't know than that we do.

People need meaning in their lives. Religion used to provide it. Science doesn't do it. So now almost nobody is providing answers except for a few writers and intellectuals.

In general those who trumpet science as a know-all be-all entity are thoroughly indoctrinated with a religious-like belief in materialist/reductionist philosophy. They think that the world of our perceptions is the real world and the only real world, a position totally imaginary and unprovable. They have a double standard: “You have to prove your assertions but mine are self-evident and need no proof”.

I think that for the deep questions of existence the concept of proof does not apply. Our human tools for knowing are useless and our assertions are meaningless from a cosmic perspective. Getting used to bewilderment might be unsettling at first but bewilderment is the most logical response IMO.

I can prove your entire statement, except for a soul. I understand the soul to be an extension of mankind’s hopefulness that there is something beyond death. Consciousness is the brain’s ability to receive and process information from it’s many sensory inputs. Hope, trust, love, are all reactions to learned experiences. We are all a product of our own experiences, and therefore have different expressions and levels of each. There is no need for a Deity here.

L think it all depends. If someone comes and tells me about their deity, that ALL my life and even after life (if such stuff is even true) depends on it,,,,and start efforts to legislate my body,my life based on that then hell yeah l NEED the damn proof that what the person is saying is true. Not just any silly proof but concrete proof that will leave me fully convinced and in agreement with them that their Deity and doctrine should rule over my life. I will not take any of this on faith or just trust.

Prove it ?

Scientists don't necessarily demand proof of everything.
But they do like 'evidence'
Although the things listed by Matias can't be 'proven' there is ample evidence that they 'exist', & many scientists accept that fact.

The emotional and aesthetic realms are independent of science, but are informed by reason and intelligence.

"The same is true about beauty, love, hope, meaning...
Human souls need all this just like the body needs water and nutrients - but none of it is a fact and can be proved..."

If no one can prove the human soul exists, how in the hell do you know what it "needs"? Go save someone else's soul, persons exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger Effect bore the hell out of me.

As you’ve all heard before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why would someone believe an extraordinary claim with zero evidence? There is nothing self evident about a Deity. If it were, we would ALL be evident of such. There would be no avoiding it. Speaking for myself, and as an Atheist, my life has all the purpose and meaning that I could ever hope for. I need no fairy tales to Doctor it up.

Well, that was a lot of fluff.

Athiest meme world wants science to be things it is not. To be fair things are often oversimplified when trying to spread a message. It doesn't work well with some of these types of concepts though.

Not everything requires proof, at least to some high level. Not all things are equally consequential.

But even highly abstract / emergent / subjective things like truth, beauty, love, hope ... have some empirical basis. One does not for example grant large amounts of trust in the absence of demonstrated trustworthiness. It often does not end well if one loves "large" before first discerning that the love object is able and willing to reciprocate that love.

The things I hope in, are not 100% rational and substantiated, but to the actual extent they can't be thus, it scarcely matters as it doesn't influence the likely outcome. I hope to age gracefully and die with a minimum of suffering, for example, but even this has empirical bases: I take certain Steps to increase the likelihood of that outcome; having done so, I recognize that worrying beyond those Steps accomplishes nothing good and invariably costs me; so I "hope" instead of worry. I also recognize from experience that I can "trick "my unconcious into feeling positive by "pretending" the desired outcome is more certain than it actually is. So I do that. Works like a champ, most of the time. And when it doesn't, it's an indication that I may have overlooked something actionable, or that I may be attached to particular outcomes in unhealthy ways, so I adjust accordingly.

So I maintain that even soft, squishy, human feeling states are improved by being as substantiated as they can be.

Science has about 2% of the answers and religion which has been around for thousands of years longer has none.... Nobody needs the hate and divisiveness religion engenders so I feel the world would be a far better place without it...

I can prove your entire statement, except for a soul. I understand the soul to be an extension of mankind’s hopefulness that there is something beyond death. Consciousness is the brain’s ability to receive and process information from it’s many sensory inputs. Hope, trust, love, are all reactions to learned experiences. We are all a product of our own experiences, and therefore have different expressions and levels of each. There is no need for a Deity here. (as deity has been mentioned twice in this thread (William). Scroll below for your research.
This is how consciousness is described by Michio Kanu, a Theoretical Physicist, and a great thinker. He does not consider it a “hard problem” , nor does he find it to be “totally baffling “. Studies have been shown to map the brains activities during sensory stimulation, with results that give indications to the above. If you’re hard pressed to believe me, then I suggest more research on your part (William).
Given that we can know nothing with absolute certainty, I’ll just choose to be satisfied with my humble understanding of things.

To prove or disprove, is the nature of science. But I don't think everything will ever be able to be proven. However, I do not want to believe either. I'm so tired of the fairy tales. Just tell me the truth. It has been said, the truth will set you free.

When people do not get what they think they need they start making it up. Human souls are just one such idea. Many things move on from there.If you have a soul then so does your dog or cat.