Gustav:
Silverstreak Wonder:
As a matter of fact, I do (kinda a very, very little bit), based on its behavior, believe that my laptop hates me.
The soul is the embodiment of the conundrum:
Why do I only exist for such a short period of time? I want to exist longer than that. It scares me that I will die. Best come up with a coping mechanism.
oooor, like animals before an earthquake, we’re aware that the ‘special sauce’ that makes us human is more than a pile of goo in our brainpan. (perhaps that’s wishful thinking, a lot like 80% of people questioned think they’re a better than average driver.)
It’s the great unanswerable question. And nobody gets out alive.
Buddhist, so absolutely no.
I love the part where a discussion of self-aware computers gets a “Take it outside, youse guys” from the moderator. This is still a great board.
Der Trihs:
What you say is indeed possible, but this immortal spirit could just as easily re-attach to a future host once the former host’s sense organs no longer possess it.
No. I believe the concept of a “soul” was invented so that mankind could pretend that it could win the game of Life, even when all other forms of life eventually died.
Reincarnation? That’s simply a form of death. If my “immortal spirit” doesn’t remember past lives, then it is nothing more than a useless parasite. Der Trihs, the person, is destroyed if my memories are gone.
The thing is my identity, self awareness, thoughts, feelings, are so closely tied with my physical body. And it is ever changing, there’s hardly an immutable thing about it. Everything about the idea of an eternal soul, and every explanation I’ve ever heard for it, is asinine and unnecessary. IMO.
No.
Nobody believes that our primate cousins have immortal souls. Genetically, chemically, structurally, we’re nearly identical.
Besides, when did we get these immortal spirits? Did Homo Erectus have a soul? Australopithecus? Neanderthal (yes, I’m aware of the thread on them)?
It makes no sense and has no evidence to support it.
Yes, it’s not even a question.
You were part of your parents spirit
You have been taught about the physical world, you have to learn again about the spiritual world as a infant learns and go through spiritual growth, then you will remember your spiritual life
A journey that will eventually have you decide to return to God through Jesus as a free will decision to give up free will and come home as God’s child. In doing so you will plant seeds in others that will help them return also.
We are going to mess it up, we get temporary bodies for our harsh learning process, the only meaningful thing is to give it to Jesus, everything else is meaningless.
It hides the harshness of the spiritual reality, some of you are spiritual slaves, though physically they are free and that appears to be a better life, it is the mercy of God that hides that till you are ready to follow Him, which He leads one out of that.
Nah.
- There’s no evidence.
- What would be the point?
- If humans have an immortal spirit, then so do bacteria, and I find that even harder to believe.
Make mine a big, foaming mug of “Hell, No!”
Der Trihs:
Reincarnation implies a religious connotation.
Nonetheless, if the construct of “spirit” is valid, all would not necessarily receive “used” spirits. Per George Carlin, you may have received a brand-spankin’ new spirit. Were this new spirit immortal, it would be passed on when you are no longer hosting it.
Many who claim to have been reincarnated also claim to remember past lives, but one with a “new” spirit would have no past lives to remember.
Superfluous Parentheses:
Souls and spirits should be falsifiable.
The idea of a soul is that it explains mental activity that cannot be accounted for by the physical properties of the brain. That means as we learn more and more about how the brain functions we should start to see deviations from the predictions made by biochemistry and neurology. If the soul really does add something to our internal mental experience, then it’s existence should absolutely be detectable (although currently we may not be able to do so).
In fact, the soul is a great testbed for analyzing religion through empirical means. Many other religious claims center around past events or one-off miracles that are not amenable to repeatable experimentation. However the interaction between the soul and the brain is continuous and ongoing. If the soul exists it’s a concrete example of the spiritual realm impinging on the material and the detection and study of the interface between the two should be very interesting. (Presuming such an interface exists, of course.)
If I were a wealthy theist I’d be pouring buckets of money into neurological research.
Did you actually mean theist here, or atheist? There are probably theists that are interested in somehow finding physical world proof of their spiritual beliefs, but I suspect they are in the minority. Now feverent atheists on the other hand, I could see pouring money into trying to empirically disprove the existence of a soul. Especially if they saw religion as evil.
Influence of religion on scientific research should be in the realm of what’s moral or ethical, not trying to prove the any claims about the natural world. IMO
The problem in this type of research is quantifying consciousness itself. Why do we have one in the first place?
What other “connotation” is there for this? Spirits are a religious concept, not something based on reality.
Then it’s just some sort of parasite. It’s not me any more than a tick is.
[Moderator Suggestion]Might I suggest that we keep this as a semi-poll, and move the heavier debate to Great Debates? I think it would take off there.[/Moderator Suggestion]
Theist.
But most real-world religions make claims about the natural world. (One of which, incidentally, is the existence of souls.) Why shouldn’t those claims be subject to confirmation or falsification?
Polls are for sissies. Anybody who starts multiple polls all the time is a fool of a took.