Why can’t those things be the result of our physical brain?
We are unaware of large parts of our body’s function, but we can explain them without resorting to ‘spirit’.
It is? Evidence?
How do you know we can’t know?
Huh? You realize this is contradictory right?
Like I said before why can’t these things come our physical brains? What evidence do you have that would cause you to believe that they are caused by something outside of our bodies physical makeup?
They are ALSO popular with Satanists.
:rolleyes: Yeah, suuuuuuure they can. And I can fire lasers from my elbows. What, you doubt me ? Well, I have just as much evidence for that as you do for your assertions.
It has to do with your claim that a simple psychological trick is “magick”, and not just psychology. And your gullibility with regards to that is just the same as your gullibility with regards to spirits - the baseless assertion of something that doesn’t exist. Magic; spirits; gods; they are all the same in that there’s no rational reason to consider any of them even possible, much less real.
It’s a dangerously insane belief, one that has led to immense suffering throughout the world. And I’ve been responding to your bizarre assertions; if it’s a hijack, it’s your hijack.
Can you explain how the brain creates awareness, consciousness, personality, and all those other higher-brain functions? Because neuroscience has no answers yet. Indeed, they are finding out that basic functions like vision, motor skills, etc. aren’t really located in a certain area of the brain, but are processed by the entire brain. And they’re still stuck on the assumption that chemistry determines everything.
“Spirit” is just an analogy, really. It’s a shorthand way of explaining how things really work. Once science learns the underlying functions, we can dispose of the word “spirit” and replace it with something else. That being said, I think we’re fighting an uphill battle simply because scientists automatically discount “spiritual energy”, and they don’t bother studying such phenomena due to cultural prejudice. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, though. Not everyone believes in the human soul, but if souls do exist, they exist whether we believe in them or not. (And if they do exist, there is genuine science to explain them…we just haven’t discovered the science of the soul yet.)
It has plenty of answers; just not complete knowledge. And “spirit” isn’t a useful or meaningful explanation for the as yet unknown details, unless and until someone comes up with evidence for it’s existence. Or, for that matter it’s possibility.
This is just the “spirit” version of the “god of the gaps”.
Since when ? In this thread, it’s been used as claim of something non-material existing. It’s not an analogy, it’s an error.
No, they do so because there’s zero evidence for any such thing. And yes scientists have tried; they come from the same culture as the rest of us.
We also haven’t discovered the slightest bit of evidence that they DO exist, or even possible. All the evidence we have says they DON’T exist.
When I was taught that spell, I was told it was “magick”. Naturally, I was suspicious, until I discovered it actually worked. And it didn’t take long for me to understand the “science” behind the spell – which dispelled the mystery and actually allowed me to hone my skill even further, because it was no longer “woo”, it was genuine psychological science! Rhythms are VERY powerful – far more powerful than pentagrams, crystals, and other magickal totems. Indeed, Rhythms underlie just about everything in our biosphere. The human “soul” itself might just be exactly that – a Rhythm.
You realize, don’t you, that the word “gullible” isn’t even in the dictionary? Look it up yourself. 
However, millions of people on this planet DO believe in these things. They can’t all be stupid. Only a person who makes a broad, baseless claim like “There is no subjective reality” or “These things can’t possibly be real” – those claims are based on pure ignorance and extreme cultural prejudice. Just because YOU don’t believe in them doesn’t mean a damn thing – they may exist, they may not, but your disbelief has zero affect on whether they exist or not. Clearly, my experiences are different than yours; but that doesn’t mean either one of us is right or wrong. Frankly, I trust my direct experience far more than the words of some random Star Trek fan, who I don’t even know from Adam.
Gibberish. Psychology isn’t “magick”; it’s psychology. Ands “rhythms” don’t underlay everything in the biosphere either.
It’s in the dictionary. Why would you say it’s not ?
Yes, they can. Or fools, or delusional. Popularity does not determine truth.
No, it’s based on scientific facts, logic, and the inability and refusal of those who disagree to provide any evidence at all that I’m wrong.
True, but irrelevant since your belief doesn’t make them real, either. I disbelieve because all the evidence leans towards you being wrong.
It’s magick to those who don’t understand the science behind it.
:rolleyes:
You have no sense of humor, do you? (Hint: It was a joke, and a pretty obvious one at that, Mr. Whoosh.)
Sure it does. Unless you think last week’s Presidential Election was fixed?
Ok, now I’m starting to believe you’re just fucking with me…
Do you want to take this to The Pit? Because I’m sure the mods are annoyed with your continued hijack of this thread.
I think it’s closer to the truth to say that we refer to something as a spirit (ignoring that apparently many people apply the word differently). We can also refer to a character in a book. That does not mean that either exists as anything more than a mental construct.
Of course it’s answerable. We might not be able to answer it right now, but the main problem right now is that we don’t even have a good definition of what the hell we mean by the word.
If we define spirit like that, and define “moral compass” similarly, we can easily prove “spirits” exist. The problem, obviously, is that most people in this thread define a spirit as something that has an eternal existence outside of the life of the physical body. And there is zero evidence for that and no need to assume anything like that exists, which probably means spirits are either irrelevant (since they apparently have no influence on “reality”) or simply non-existent. And the simpler explanation is the more probable one.
Pretending that psychological tricks are “magick” is an example of fraud, not Clarke’s Law.
It wasn’t funny, and your beliefs are goofy enough there’s no way to tell when you are joking or serious.
:rolleyes: A popularity contest being decided by popular vote isn’t at all the same as pretending that objective reality is determined by vote. We can vote for Obama, but not for antigravity.
What ARE you babbling about ? You handwave my objections away by pointing out my disbelief doesn’t make something false, and I point out the converse that your belief doesn’t make something true.
The difference is, the evidence is all on my side.
They can be, and may be. I’m just saying in common vernacular believers and non believers refer to someone’s spirit in a number of ways, not all of them supernatural. Sometimes it relates to some outstanding aspect of their personality, as in, a loving spirit, a generous spirit, or even mean spirited.
Sure we can. That doesn’t effect what I’ve said. We commonly use the term spirit in ways that describe the overall makeup of a person, don’t we? I’m not referring specifically to any supernatural reference.
Look at the slow painful yet steady progress of human rights. Hasn’t mankind made progress in human rights even though there is still much work to be done?
You noticed the word currently didn’t you? If science has answered that question I missed it but I’m willing to examine any evidence available.
Actually, reading in context, it isn’t. It seems pretty obvious that we want to explore and understand things we don’t currently understand. We like to know things we don’t currently know. Correct?
I never said they were.
It’s something we don’t currently know. That’s fine. Some people prefer to think in terms of a spirit that is more the primary us than our physical bodies are. A spirit that lives on after the body ceases to function. The tendency to prefer that belief doesn’t change the fact that they don’t know. In the same way those who prefer to believe all those qualities are products of our physical makeup can’t know with certainty that they are correct. I’m stating that it doesn’t matter if we know that or not. What seems clear is that our intellectual, emotional, and moral makeup, is something we can develop in ourselves as individuals, and by cause and effect, our societies , and our race. That part of ourselves that we commonly refer to as spirit is something believers and non believers can find common ground on in our efforts to progress.
In that case…get yer butt over here.
Of course it’s a mental construct. It’s the mental construct we all make of what we think might be true concerning the things we don’t know. How much that mental construct relates to reality is the question we are exploring.
How specific and precise a definition do we need about something that is largely unknown? That’s why I offered the vague definition I did. Per the OP yes, we have a spirit, ie, the general makeup of our personality, intellect, and morals, or if you prefer, our consciousness. The question of it being supernatural or completely physical is irrelevant to that answer, and an additional question regarding details.
Well, it’s clear some people do prefer to see spirit as something eternal and supernatural. The fact that there is zero hard physical evidence doesn’t necessarily translate into “no need”.
It certainly does not mean that spirits are irrelevant or have no influence on reality. Then definition I offered clearly does have a strong influence. That’s my point. The question of whether spirit is generated by our physical form or exists independent of it is irrelevant to our development of that spirit.
And that means that they don’t know yet, and thats it. Until you have evidence that spirits are in fact involved, there’s no reason to talk about them.
Um, no it isn’t. Until science learns the underlying functions we say ‘I don’t know’.
Actually, they generally dismiss it because it violates other rules of physics, is generally asserted in situations like this one where science doesn’t have all the answers, and because every single investigation into ‘spiritual energy’ or things like it have turned up exactly nothing. When they find something that gives us a reason to believe spirits exist, then we can say they do. Until then, there is no reason to.
Once again, without evidence that they exist, there is no reason assert them at all. ‘I don’t know’ is a good answer if it’s true.
You are confusing two meanings of the word ‘spirit’. In this discussion, we are talking about the supernatural variant of the word. This definition is not relevant.
It’s only unknown if we define it in terms that make it unknown (or just don’t make sense).
I could have phrased that better: what I meant, more or less, is that there is not only no evidence that spirits exist in any “real” way except as a collection of thoughts/morals/etc that are caused by having a living human brain, there is also no evidence of events or things that could reasonably hint at a more supernatural spirit. The god of the gaps is dead as a dodo.
True, but then again, a spirit as a short-hand for a bunch of purely physical effects of having a working brain isn’t exactly what most people here are debating. Which is why we do need a good definition in the first place.
I’m not confusing them. I know what they are. I’m saying there is a common ground which makes the unknown irrelevant. Whether the spirit is eternal while our bodies are temporary, or our consciousness ceases when our bodies cease functioning is that unknown. Either may or may not be true. It seems to me that finding the common ground where the term spirit can be either is pretty relevant. but YMMV
That may not be what you’re talking about but keep in my I didn’t respond to your post, you responded to mine. I just posted my 2 cents worth and didn’t comment on anybodies post.
oh, never mind.
Well no. It’s unknown because there are still many things about our consciousness, our emotions, our intellects, that we have yet to understand. I’m referring to things we don’t know which fits the definition of unknown. Right?
No hard objective evidence that can be demonstrated that’s true. That’s due to the fact that the nature of our consciousness is still beyond the ability of science to measure and define. Individuals have personal subjective experiences which they interpret as “spiritual” and supports the mythology in various ways, but that does not change the *fact * that we don’t yet know the true nature and source of consciousness or it’s boundaries. If you decide there’s no good reason for you to consider anything but a purely physical source that’s fine. If someone else , based on their different experience, decides they tend to believe in a more supernatural and/or religious interpretation of spirit that’s alright as well. Being open to the possibility is part of sorting out truth from fiction. I think it’s unwise and a hindrance to growth when believers claim to know with certainty something they can’t possibly know, or worse, they deny real evidence in favor of clinging to tradition and myth. It’s also unfortunate when those who prefer to reject spirituality as anything real dismiss it based on a lack of scientific evidence , when you consider it’s an area science barely approaches.
I prefer an approach similar to the Bahais where science and religion both serve mankind in seeking the truth.
Considering the subject matter I don’t there can be a good definition which is why I stayed out of most of this thread. Neither side can know, only discuss the possibilities, which is what I’m doing. I’ve participated in a lot of this type of thread and done my share of going round and round on issues that have no definitive answer. I prefer to find the common ground. On the issue of spirit I think it’s recognizing the relevant aspects of spirit that effect all our lives, and recognizing the questions we can’t answer yet.
Glad to see that you picked up on a discussion of “spirit.” I predict that this thread will go another 300 posts and nothing will be accomplished.
Is it reasonable to believe we have a spirit? Of course it is. I thought you liberals were so open minded?
Before you can debate something guys, please define your terms:
Main Entry: 1spir·it
Pronunciation: \ˈspir-ət\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French, espirit, spirit, from Latin spiritus, literally, breath, from spirare to blow, breathe
Date: 13th century
1: an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms
2: a supernatural being or essence: as acapitalized : holy spirit b: soul
3: temper or disposition of mind or outlook especially when vigorous or animated <in high spirits>
4: the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person
5 a: the activating or essential principle influencing a person <acted in a spirit of helpfulness> b: an inclination, impulse, or tendency of a specified kind : mood
In order to believe in spirit you need to understand what its source might be. I have stated before that if you cannot accept you have a spirit then you will not be able to understand God and viceversa. Remember, everything that has ever existed had to be created.
“You should keep your mind open, but not so open it falls out.”
Of course I can. God’s imaginary. That’s not hard to understand at all. Belief in God isn’t deep and profound; it’s rather the opposite of deep and profound.
No, it doesn’t. And even if it did that would hardly make God an explanation since he’d also have to be created by that logic. That “explanation” just moves the question of origins one step back to a God there’s no evidence of, and them demands that no one question how God came into existence. It’s an attempt to silence questions and promote theism, not an explanation of anything.