Poll: Do you think we are born with an immortal soul?

[Cephus]

There's some evidence, it's a matter of whether you throw it out immediately just because it doesn't come from a mainstream source, or whether you throw out the conclusions because the mostly atheist scientific establishment doesn't like it. For instance, the criticism of the 21 grams experiment is mostly very shoddy. Their desparate attacks on the methodology in no way discredit the basic findings. But I'm interested in what you mean "It's been debunked". Please elaborate on what exactly has been debunked and how.

It would depend on what the claimed evidence actually is. Most atheists don't throw out actual evidence out of hand, they evaluate it and if they find it lacking, they reject it. The problem is that so many theists claim there is evidence and when asked to present it, can only come up with personal experiences, unsupported claims and blind faith. None of those are actually evidence, that's why they are largely unaccepted by atheists.

So far as I know, and granted, I haven't looked lately, but the 21 gram experiment has never been replicated and that's a fundamental requirement of science. Given the same set of circumstances, an experiment must produce the same results consistently. It hasn't. The fact that it cannot be consistently replicated says something is wrong with the original methodology. When you can reproduce those results every single time, let us know, until then, it's debunked.

 

[Sha'irullah]

There's some evidence, it's a matter of whether you throw it out immediately just because it doesn't come from a mainstream source, or whether you throw out the conclusions because the mostly atheist scientific establishment doesn't like it. For instance, the criticism of the 21 grams experiment is mostly very shoddy. Their desparate attacks on the methodology in no way discredit the basic findings. But I'm interested in what you mean "It's been debunked". Please elaborate on what exactly has been debunked and how.

Again, look up any basic information about the acquisition of knowledge obtained from mental research about the brain and neurological activity.

I am entirely unaware of any experiment providing evidence for the soul at all but basic medical research alone already has such descent evidence going against that conclusion.

Also there is no way on earth you could accept Duncan MacDougall's quackery. The soul cannot have a weight of any sorts. Basic logic disproves this and the criticism is pretty much solid.

The God Helmet has less criticism to go through than the 21 grams claims.

 

[Sha'irullah]

It would depend on what the claimed evidence actually is. Most atheists don't throw out actual evidence out of hand, they evaluate it and if they find it lacking, they reject it. The problem is that so many theists claim there is evidence and when asked to present it, can only come up with personal experiences, unsupported claims and blind faith. None of those are actually evidence, that's why they are largely unaccepted by atheists.

So far as I know, and granted, I haven't looked lately, but the 21 gram experiment has never been replicated and that's a fundamental requirement of science. Given the same set of circumstances, an experiment must produce the same results consistently. It hasn't. The fact that it cannot be consistently replicated says something is wrong with the original methodology. When you can reproduce those results every single time, let us know, until then, it's debunked.

I love posting this for some reason..

~Thomas Paine~
"Revelation, when applied to religion, means
something communicated immediately from God to man.
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such
a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case,
that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not
revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When
he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth,
and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is
revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and
consequently they are not obliged to believe it.
It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a
revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in
writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first
communication- after this, it is only an account of something which
that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may
find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to
believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me,
and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."​

It strikes me as odd people do not see the bias in their own claims

 

[Cephus]

I love posting this for some reason..

~Thomas Paine~
"Revelation, when applied to religion, means
something communicated immediately from God to man.
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such
a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case,
that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not
revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When
he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth,
and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is
revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and
consequently they are not obliged to believe it.
It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a
revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in
writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first
communication- after this, it is only an account of something which
that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may
find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to
believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me,
and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."​

It strikes me as odd people do not see the bias in their own claims

The issue, of course, is that no one can demonstrate that they've actually had a first-person encounter with God, in fact, people may have experiences and they just arbitrarily assign the cause to God because they want it to be true, not because they have any evidence or actual reason to think it is true.

That's the specific reason that most atheists don't take theist claims of personal revelation seriously, their accounts are often irrational, they cannot trace an actual causal link to a particular supernatural entity (or any supernatural entity at all) and they expect people to take their word for it. Sorry, that's not how it works.

 

[Thief]

So...what of a discussion that runs from one statement to another......refined and properly dressed?

Hence the parable of the wedding feast.

That you consider something too fantastic to believe.....is your fail.

True...a great many say they believe and do so without consideration.
But make no such practice.
I make careful considerations.

Still ended up believing in God.

 

[Shermana]

Again, look up any basic information about the acquisition of knowledge obtained from mental research about the brain and neurological activity.

Then you should have no problem providing a single link that confirms the non-existence of a soul, and show that it's purely all on in the brain.

I am entirely unaware of any experiment providing evidence for the soul at all but basic medical research alone already has such descent evidence going against that conclusion.

Assuming you go by a faulty interpretation of the evidence and assume that the physical brain activity is all there is in the first place.

Also there is no way on earth you could accept Duncan MacDougall's quackery. The soul cannot have a weight of any sorts. Basic logic disproves this and the criticism is pretty much solid.

Basically just handwaving and brushing aside and calling a person a quack is all those opposed to the experiment can really do. I don't see why the soul can't have any weight.

As you can see, your belief of confirmation against the soul is based on a series of presumptions and baseless assertions and confirmation biases. I can assure you personally there is such thing as a soul, that it is an actual thing has weight, and that is separate from the body and merely is the "pilot" of the fleshly vehicle, of which that vehicle's electrical activity is necessary for its interaction with physical reality, and when the body is dead, it leaves.

My personal assurance there is better than your own personal assertions of the evidence against it and equally sourced.

The God Helmet has less criticism to go through than the 21 grams claims.

I'll have to look up this God Helmet concept. Are you even aware of what the criticism of the 21 grams experiments is about? It's so shoddy it's ridiculous.

 

[Sha'irullah]

The issue, of course, is that no one can demonstrate that they've actually had a first-person encounter with God, in fact, people may have experiences and they just arbitrarily assign the cause to God because they want it to be true, not because they have any evidence or actual reason to think it is true.

That's the specific reason that most atheists don't take theist claims of personal revelation seriously, their accounts are often irrational, they cannot trace an actual causal link to a particular supernatural entity (or any supernatural entity at all) and they expect people to take their word for it. Sorry, that's not how it works.

And I fully agree with you :yes:. This is how the concept of "Divine Hearsay" came about for Deists .

Even if you did believe in god there is no reason for such a being to use a relay rally style form of communication.

I share your sentiments with this issue greatly

 

[Sha'irullah]

Then you should have no problem providing a single link that confirms the non-existence of a soul, and show that it's purely all on in the brain.

Just did, in video format at that.

What you are asking me for is a link to prove that that the our action stem from the brain.

You either reject all modern biology or accept it. That is it.

Assuming you go by a faulty interpretation of the evidence and assume that the physical brain activity is all there is in the first plac

e.

Interpretation of nothing. Evidence does not need interpretation. This is a fallacy already as interpreting anything implies that the evidence is subjective more than it is objective thus not actual evidence.

You have an answer and will be be satisfied until it is proven. This is reverse scientific methodology.

Basically just handwaving and brushing aside and calling a person a quack is all those opposed to the experiment can really do. I don't see why the soul can't have any weight.

Nobody has even bothered duplicating the results, because they cannot.
21 grams is not much weight ya know.

As you can see, your belief of confirmation against the soul is based on a series of presumptions and baseless assertions and confirmation biases. I can assure you personally there is such thing as a soul, that it is an actual thing has weight, and that is separate from the body and merely is the "pilot" of the fleshly vehicle, of which that vehicle's electrical activity is necessary for its interaction with physical reality, and when the body is dead, it leaves.

Learn bilogy.

"The legs bone is connected to the knee bone".

You are asserting that if we are to have no brains at all we can make choices and decisions?

Please do this opcorn:. Tell me how it goes.

My personal assurance there is better than your own personal assertions of the evidence against it and equally sourced.

I have years of medical studies and common sense backing me up.

Again. Prove to me that without the brain we as human beings can make choices and function if our soul does this for us.

I'll have to look up this God Helmet concept. Are you even aware of what the criticism of the 21 grams experiments is about? It's so shoddy it's ridiculous.

No, YOUR reasoning is ridiculous. Asserting that the soul has weight is a very bizarre claim even for a theist and hold sup to no evidence. If the soul was bound by the natural laws of science it could be observed in some shape or form.
Something of no material cannot contain weight. It is a contradiction unto itself.

I heard of this claim as a kid and forgot all about it until you brought it up.

Even Christians find the claim laughable. I am talking about conservatives fundies at that

 

[Shermana]

Just did, in video format at that.

I must have missed the link.

What you are asking me for is a link to prove that that the our action stem from the brain.

What I'm asking you to prove is that all there is to action itself is just the brain.

You either reject all modern biology or accept it. That is it.

Then you don't understand the basic premise of the concept you're saying. You're assuming that all there is to life is the brain itself. I'm just saying that there's more to this concept called "life" than the body itself.

e.

Interpretation of nothing. Evidence does not need interpretation. This is a fallacy already as interpreting anything implies that the evidence is subjective more than it is objective thus not actual evidence.

What a nice way of saying "nuh uh".

You have an answer and will be be satisfied until it is proven. This is reverse scientific methodology.

That's basically what you're doing.

Nobody has even bothered duplicating the results, because they cannot.
21 grams is not much weight ya know.

No, because no one has bothered. 21 grams is a little under an ounce, which is actually a significant weight for something non-solid.

Learn bilogy.

Is it related to biology?

I would bet I know far more about biology than you.

"The legs bone is connected to the knee bone".

My uncle's a renowned Orthopedic surgeon, he can tell you all about bones.

You are asserting that if we are to have no brains at all we can make choices and decisions?

Not in the body.

Please do this opcorn:. Tell me how it goes.

I can't. But I'm also saying you can't use your brain if you don't have a soul piloting it.

I have years of medical studies and common sense backing me up.

Backing up a misinterpretation and presumption? I don't think you're quite on the same page as me.

Again. Prove to me that without the brain we as human beings can make choices and function if our soul does this for us.

Did you intentionally ignore or just not quite understand what I meant that the soul is simply the pilot utilizing the body of flesh?

No, YOUR reasoning is ridiculous. Asserting that the soul has weight is a very bizarre claim even for a theist and hold sup to no evidence. If the soul was bound by the natural laws of science it could be observed in some shape or form.

So again, all you can do is write it off as ridiculous and then write off the 21 grams experiment as "no evidence".

Something of no material cannot contain weight. It is a contradiction unto itself.

I never said it has no material. I have a couple ideas of what it is made of but that's immaterial to this discussion.

I heard of this claim as a kid and forgot all about it until you brought it up.

Glad to remind you.

Even Christians find the claim laughable... [/QUOTE]

Good for them! They can go sit on a pointy rock.

 

[captainbryce]

You're under the presumption the "Lake of Fire" is somehow not connected to Gen-Hinnom, which Jesus speaks of in very similar terms.

I have no doubt there they are connected in a metaphorical sense, just not in a literal sense.

It could very well be the same exact thing, just a specific description.

And, it could very well be that they are not. "Could be" isn't evidence. Unless there is evidence that they are in fact one in the same, then I will dismiss such speculation. It is more logical to conclude that Jesus was speaking metaphorically because that would be consistent with A) how he normally spoke, B) the chronology of the scriptural referenes to Gehenna and the Lake of Fire, and C) the scriptural accounts of death being the wages of sin.

With that said, we don't know what "Hinnom" means exactly. It could very well be the exact equivalent of "Lake of Fire", but "Valley of Fire",

The Valley of Hinnom was named after a person or family. The full name is the Valley of the Son of Hinnom. It originally had no great meaning beyond that and has nothing to do with "fire". This is from an Israeli tourism site:

The full name of this low-lying land is the Valley of the Son of Hinnom – whoever that may have been. Knowing nothing about either son or father, we can only conjecture that Hinnom probably bequeathed his son some rather fertile farmland in this valley that surrounds old Jerusalem on the southwest. The valley’s name in Hebrew is Gei Ben-Hinnom or simply Gei-Hinnom. In light of the sacrifices to the fire god, the latter name gave rise to the word “Gehenna,” which over time became a synonym for hell.

Early Jewish sages saw Isaiah 31:9 – which says God’s “fire is in Zion” and “furnace in Jerusalem” – as a reference to this valley, which they described as the gates of hell. The valley’s other biblical name, Topheth, means inferno, adding to its image as a place of eternal torment.

Valley of Hinnom

and it just so happens that Enoch uses the expression "Valley of fire" to define it.

It doesn't matter that Enoch described it that way, because his description was most likely colored by what the Valley was already known for during his time. Again, the Book of Jeremiah and 2 Chronicles PREDATE the writing of Enoch by centuries!

A "Lake" and a "Valley" of fire are both the same thing if they're made of fire.

Not necessarily. First of all, there is huge difference between a "lake" and a "valley". A lake is defined as a large, inland body of fresh or salt water, or a pool of liquid of considerable size, surrounded by land. A "valley" is defined as an elongated lowland between ranges of mountains, hills or other uplands often having a river or stream running along the bottom. IF a valley has water in it, it would more likely resemble a river, not a lake. Secondly, even to many fundamentalists who take on a literalist viewpoint, the term "Lake of Fire" generally conjures an image of a pool of molten lava.

13. The Lake of Fire Judgement Age
When A Sinner Goes To Hell. . .
WHAT is HELL, HADES, SHEOL?

So why must we assume that the Gen-Hinnom Jesus was referring to was only in reference to the place where the Canaanites were burning babies exactly?

1) Because no other assumptions fits the facts. 2) It doesn't matter where the literal Gehenna that he is referring to is because he is only using it as a symbolic reference for "burning".

You are assuming that those books don't predate the accounts in the Tanakh for one thing.

That's not an assumption, it's a fact (according to most biblical scholars).

We simply don't know when Enoch was written.

The older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) are estimated to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably was composed at the end of the 1st century BC. - Fahlbusch E., Bromiley G.W. The Encyclopedia of Christianity: P–Sh page 411

As we see with the Septuagint, there's a big difference between SON Of Hinnom, and Valley of Hinnom....

No, there isn't! It's the same valley.

Many works like Mark are given a late dating

Be that as it may, speculation is not evidence. Unless you have some evidence to suggest that the writings contained in Enoch and the War Scroll "predate" the writings of Jeremiah and 2 Chronicles (despite what most biblical scholars say), then you're not making a rational argument.

WHY would they refer to their idea of hell as the same name as Gen-Hinnom? That's a very important question.

And that question has already been answered by the fact that it was a place of burning. It's the same reason why Jesus symbolically connects the two places.

Or maybe "Valley of burning" simply does not refer to one place?

Speculation is not evidence!

It's illogical to assume it would. Again, it would be like assuming "Hell's kitchen" has to mean the place where Hell's food it cooked. Obviously the name was used for more than one place.

This is a non-sequitur!

I do. I simply don't see your view as the more "logical" view.

It is more logical by virtue of the fact that it is supported by more evidence, and the professional opinion of biblical scholars. Yours is supported by neither!

Your view implies everything that refers to it as a firey place for souls as purely "metaphorical" automatically, as if a plain reading won't do.

A plain reading (as in completely literal) does NOT do, because it relies on a hypocrisy and allows for biblical inconsistency. If you want to use a "plain reading", then you should also plainly understand that Jesus expect everyone to cut off their limbs and gouge out their eyes, because that's what he plainly says!

Only by interpreting scripture inconsistently and completely arbitrary, in such a way to ignore context altogether should one be expected to interpret Jesus' comments about hellfire as "literal". The wages of sin is death!

It's very relevant because Jesus wouldn't use such imagery of it as a place of fire.

Why not? According to you Enoch did, and all the other Jews did. Why wouldn't Jesus?

Early Jewish sages saw Isaiah 31:9 – which says God’s “fire is in Zion” and “furnace in Jerusalem” – as a reference to this valley, which they described as the gates of hell. The valley’s other biblical name, Topheth, means inferno, adding to its image as a place of eternal torment.

Actually it very well predates the Masoretic. And so do the Targums. Thus we have nothing but the Septuagint to enforce your OT view.

The oldest Tanakh manuscript in Hebrew and Aramaic dates to the 10th century CE.

Memories of Ancient Israel: An Introduction to Biblical History - Ancient ... - Philip R. Davies - Google Books

And what does the Septuagint say? It says the valley of the SON of Hinnom. Hmmm. Is that the exact same thing? I don't think so.

It doesn't matter what you THINK, it only matter's what th evidence shows. Istanbul used to be called Constantinople! Names change over time! But when referring to them as they were in the past, you don't call them what they are know as today! A change in name doesn't alter it's meaning.

Gehenna (Greek γέενν&#945, Gehinnom (Rabbinical Hebrew: גהנום/גהנ&#1501 and Yiddish Gehinnam, are terms derived from a place outside ancient Jerusalem known in the Hebrew Bible as the Valley of the Son of Hinnom (Hebrew: גֵיא בֶן־הִנֹּם or גיא בן-הינום one of the two principal valleys surrounding the Old City.

Gehenna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the idea that it's a purely metaphorical description is illogical and inconsistent, and based on fallacious logic.

Such as?

Illogical HOW? Inconsistent with WHAT?

It would be illogical and inconsistent to assume that they would simply use a metaphor of one of the many "Gen Hinnoms" (called SON of Hinnom in our earliest copies) where children were burned to define a place where the Soul is destroyed if it weren't an actual physical supernatural place they believed in.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I think think there is any logic to this argument.

They aren't, but they have very solid reasoning for their points which you are trying to call "illogical" and "inconsistent".

Correct. You and I have very different definitions of what constitutes "solid reasoning".

You're missing the point. Your argument entails that the Jews just suddenly made up this concept and went with it as the mainstream view all of the sudden.

Negative. I am saying that the concept developed overtime through what was originally a "metaphor" (as is often the case). Just like how the concept of "Christmas" as a Christian holiday changed from what it originally was (a pagan celebration).

 

[captainbryce]

Who says there has to be an "end goal"?

Logic does! If there is no end goal to a specific task, then the task serves no purpose.

To me, helping others attain greater "enlightenment" and happiness is probably as close to an "end goal" as I can enunciate. But what is also important is that, as I was pretty much abandoning my theism, I was worried about what would set morality for me or would it be "if it feels good, do it!"? By nothing but sheer coincidence (I think), I began delving deeper in Buddhist dharma, and that very much has helped to set direction for me.

So basically, "enlightenment" means whatever makes someone happy, so long as it doesn't conflict with the Buddhist dharma's philosophy of morality? :sarcastic

When the Dalai Lama was asked what set his morality without a belief in a creator-god, his response was that it's the most basic experience we first learn as a child: when we're loved and treated well, that makes us happy, but if we're neglected and treated badly that makes us sad. Now, what could be more basic than that? Therefore, treating others with compassion and fairness is basic, and then we can also help with the enlightenment to love ourselves and all others.

I have no problem with that. What I don't understand is that if its so easy to recognize this, and if this concept is so "basic" as you seem to acknowledge, then why must we become "enlightened" at all? Shouldn't everyone who understands this self-evident, morality already be enlightened? How do you get "more enlightened" if you already know the BASIC concept of good and evil?

 

[captainbryce]

But for me, reason should be based on some objective evidence, and to not do so can lead to vociferous arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. And, again to me, that which lacks evidence can be put into the "Maybe" department.

I suppose that's the difference between you and I then. I consider matters of what lies beyond this life to be of great importance than this little insignificant, meaningless life. You see the opposite! If there was no life beyond this life, I'd rather not exist at all (and so would everyone else in the world who's ever suffered a short, miserable existence).

In order to by a scientific hypothesis, there must be at least some evidence that it could be correct. M-Theory, for example, has some mathematical justification for its possibility, but don't ask my how since I'm not a mathematician.

This just goes back to the "subjective evaluation of evidence" argument.

I didn't say I don't inquire, just that I know that I'll never know all the answers. I'm a scientist who seeks answers and not a theists who thinks he has the answers.

I'm a theist who believes I have the relevant answers, and one who also believes that the answer that I don't have WILL ultimately be revealed. I would not be content with "never knowing all the answers".

 

[Shermana]

I suppose it shows the shift from a God who would kill you and punish until the 4th generation and one who now condemns you to eternal fire...One could argue that it's the influence of surrounding mythology...also wasn't Isaiah 66 (I think that is the second half) written during their time in Babylon?

I believe Isaiah was written well before Babylon. At least a century. Some say the last chapters were written after the return from Exile, but this is from the usual anti-prophecy bias that assigns late datings to any kind of fulfilled prophecy.

 

[metis]

Logic does! If there is no end goal to a specific task, then the task serves no purpose.

We can have multiple goals in life, and there simply is no reason why one supposedly has to have a post-life "end goal". Why do they supposedly have to, especially in such a subjective area? Am I supposedly to give up on life merely because I don't know if there's an after-life?

So basically, "enlightenment" means whatever makes someone happy, so long as it doesn't conflict with the Buddhist dharma's philosophy of morality? :sarcastic

I really don't think your sarcasm makes your position any stronger.

Secondly, Buddhism is not a selfish approach to life.

Thirdly, why would you scoff at someone else's religion/philosophy?

BTW, I am not Buddhist.

I have no problem with that. What I don't understand is that if its so easy to recognize this, and if this concept is so "basic" as you seem to acknowledge, then why must we become "enlightened" at all? Shouldn't everyone who understands this self-evident, morality already be enlightened? How do you get "more enlightened" if you already know the BASIC concept of good and evil?

"Knowing" is just the first part of the approach, nor is "knowing" always that simple. The Catholic monk, Thomas Merton, said his learning of Buddhist dharma helped to make his Christianity come alive.

Another huge step is application because "knowing" without "application" then becomes meaningless for most of us. IOW, fine I "know", but so what? And it's this application that becomes quite challenging since things in life are rarely that simple.

For example, if I respect others, why would I use sarcasm to try and demean them, which also would violate halacha (Jewish Law), btw?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I was born with an immortal soul, but I traded it years ago for a used stereo system. Best deal I ever made.