Does he?
Define soul.
No.
Who says it’s a ‘he’?
As the traditional patriarchal figure, and following the fact that I’m male, it comes naturally for me to assume that he is a “he” rather than a she, not out of any sexist overtones.
Soul: The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
So I, being a female who doesn’t buy the ‘it’s only natural’ argument and also who rebels against the oppression of patriarchy, will assert that it’s a She. And the spirit of my rebellion inspires me to capitalize the word, which I believe trumps the itsy bitsy ‘h’. 
BTW, there may be ‘spirit’ in the act of rebellion, but there is no such thing as a soul. Or maybe you can show me one?
I don’t believe in “the soul” or “the god” - this question sounds to me like asking whether the Easter Bunny really eats Leprechauns.
Traditional churchianity will not see what it says in Genesis in the Bible:
Let us make them in Our image, male & female He created them .
I can get you the exact verse later if you want.
Let Us; God the Father, the Son, & the Mother, represented by the Holy Spirit or a Dove sometimes.
ct101
Arguing the gender of a fantasy creature seems to me to be an unproductive line of inquiry.
Arguing the merits of an unknowable world seems just as unproductive, and yet we do it.
Oh, Shaney, you’re comparing the likelihood of the world existing - something that’s right in front of us, with skepticism being valid but unlikely - with the likelihood of existence of god - something that’s not right in front of us, also unprovable each way but not exactly palpable to the touch?
You think the two are on a par?
Have you heard of Occam’s Razor? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_Razor
Don’t get me wrong - you’re allowed to believe in both. But you’ll need a lot of substantiation before you put them both on an equal footing of existential probability.
You don’t need a line of inquiry to be productive, and I thought from your topics that you understood this.
I’m not saying that they are on par with each other in the matter of their relative verifiability, I’m just saying that they are both in the same ballpark and so you shouldn’t state that the discovery of one is more “productive” than the discovery or inquiry into another.
Probably not. But Christians already invented the answer to your question when they were writing Chrisitanity. Isn’t God, by definition, the creator of our souls?
Not if man has free will and we work with genetics, maybe.
I define the soul as the subconscious. It is a product of physiology and the individual’s own work.
I believe “he” technically does because “he” is the uncreated creator. Our souls are supposedly a direct incarnation of “god himself.”
What do you mean by this?
If we have free will (who we decide to mate with) and genetics affects us (our looks, and thus, how we feel about ourselves and other) then it’s debatable whether or not God personally creates our souls or if we create the our children’s souls by giving birth to them.
At least the God you don’t believe in doesn’t.
Yes, God creates souls and then loses them.
So then it’s up to us to find our own soul and give it back to Him.
Now, doesn’t that feel nice?
If yes, then it must be true.