DD, what has the concept of 'spirit' got to do with the neural capacity to form memories or to express friendship? Your comments suggest that you directly associate this idea of a soul/ spirit with individual behaviour , memory and social interaction. Please clarify why these given phenomenon cannot be the result of purely biological processes. Please do not fall into the mistaken assumption that any biological or chemical model would mandate robotic behaviour ( we can happily discuss robotics and programming elsewhere if you would like to discuss why. )
Posts by Qcmbr
-
165Do Animals Have Souls?
by Cold Steel ini know most jehovah's witnesses believe in the soul sleeping doctrine.
by this, given that neither man nor beast has a spirit, but that they do possess souls (or "intelligences" unique to themselves).
where this intelligence resides between death and resurrection is more than a passing interest, but again, assuming that yehweh can recreate one's distict soul, does the society believe that animals have souls?
-
-
-
165
Do Animals Have Souls?
by Cold Steel ini know most jehovah's witnesses believe in the soul sleeping doctrine.
by this, given that neither man nor beast has a spirit, but that they do possess souls (or "intelligences" unique to themselves).
where this intelligence resides between death and resurrection is more than a passing interest, but again, assuming that yehweh can recreate one's distict soul, does the society believe that animals have souls?
-
-
Qcmbr
The moment we start mentioning concepts such as the soul we leap into a world of speculation. Pretty pictures of cats do not substitute for a serious discussion. I no longer believe in what I was taught by a fraudulent faith from a mythical book and therefore I must also reject such fanciful notions as souls, spirits and ghosts. If I were to learn that indeed there is something to consciousness beyond the brain and nervous system I would be thrilled. To get to that point would need evidence.
This is a summary of the evidence as far as I've ever read:
1 / Reincarnation stories
2 / NDEs
3 / Sightings of ghosts
4 / The subjective and intuitive experience of self
These can all be discussed elsewhere but it is clear that none of these produce evidence of a consistent or sufficient quantity to argue for anything beyond statistical chance, confirmation bias, perception mistakes, planted memories, chemical flooding of the brain and the temporary overstimulation of parts of the brain. This is not to dismiss them but to simply show that these do not meet the requirements to argue for a consistent phenomenon.
This is a summary of the evidence against a spirit IMO:
1 / It is not required under any biological definition of life. Cell division, DNA replication, respiration, procreation etc. need no additional factors to explain them.
2 / All human behaviour can be traced to biological and chemical origins and do not argue for some as yet unmeasured energy. Chemical conditions induce happiness, sadness, anger, fear and so on. A brain that is learning grows new neural connections. A brain that is damaged loses functionality. Some brains produce or experience abnormal chemical levels leading to such constructs as depression, bipolarity, genius and so on. The use of chemicals to redress these balances can remove the behaviour.
3 / When the brain returns to its natural state consciousness ceases ( we call it sleep but it has many measurable stages) We do not experience this state, no accessible memories are laid down, no perception is constructed for us with the slight exception of REM.
4 / With the exception of obvious physical trauma deaths the process of death is not specific and occurs in stages. Sometimes it takes years as parts of the brain shut down. People declared dead can be resuscitated. People may go unconscious over a long time until the automatic signalling system portion of the brain shuts down and the heart stops beating. Brain activity will continue to flicker for some time afterwards in autopilot. If a spirit were an essential part of life it would be clear when death occurred, every single time.
If we argue for a spirit we must conclude that it itself has no memory, is totally dominated and controlled by the biological systems of the body, plays no part in determining emotional state, carries no character or state at birth ( children's behaviour absolutely matches well studied brain development paths), does not maintain character ( amnesia, alzheimers and so on) , is unable to maintain a sense of self independently ( deja vu, anaesthesia, being drunk, illness or physiological stress induced delirium) , has not been observed at any level, micro or macro in any biological systems nor is it predicted by any models ( no model predicts it and no unsolved biological question would be solved by it.)
It seems the greatest argument for a spirit is based on religious ideas, the need to explain reality as having some unmeasurable, mysterious essence which privileges the conscious being and flatters them as being not only vital in a vast universe but actually the cause of it ( the world was built for us idea.)
-
165
Do Animals Have Souls?
by Cold Steel ini know most jehovah's witnesses believe in the soul sleeping doctrine.
by this, given that neither man nor beast has a spirit, but that they do possess souls (or "intelligences" unique to themselves).
where this intelligence resides between death and resurrection is more than a passing interest, but again, assuming that yehweh can recreate one's distict soul, does the society believe that animals have souls?
-
-
Qcmbr
Sourced from mormonthink.com
LDS definition of spirit as taught in church today
That part of a living being which exists before mortal birth, which dwells in the physical body during mortality, and which exists after death as a separate being until the resurrection. All living things—mankind, animals, and plants—were spirits before any form of life existed upon the earth (Gen. 2:4–5; Moses 3:4–7). The spirit body looks like the physical body (1 Ne. 11:11; Ether 3:15–16; D&C 77:2; D&C 129). Spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure than mortal element or matter (D&C 131:7).
Every person is literally a son or a daughter of God, having been born as a spirit to Heavenly Parents before being born to mortal parents on the earth (Heb. 12:9). Each person on earth has an immortal spirit body in addition to a body of flesh and bone. As sometimes defined in scripture, the spirit and the physical body together constitute the soul (Gen. 2:7;D&C 88:15; Moses 3:7, 9, 19; Abr. 5:7). A spirit can live without a physical body, but the physical body cannot live without the spirit (James 2:26). Physical death is the separation of the spirit from the body. In the resurrection, the spirit is reunited with the same physical body of flesh and bone it possessed as a mortal, with two major differences: they will never be separated again, and the physical body will be immortal and perfected (Alma 11:45; D&C 138:16–17)
-
165
Do Animals Have Souls?
by Cold Steel ini know most jehovah's witnesses believe in the soul sleeping doctrine.
by this, given that neither man nor beast has a spirit, but that they do possess souls (or "intelligences" unique to themselves).
where this intelligence resides between death and resurrection is more than a passing interest, but again, assuming that yehweh can recreate one's distict soul, does the society believe that animals have souls?
-
-
Qcmbr
What are we defining as life? The whole idea of a spirit as somehow a necessary distinct item that carries someone's essence and is eternal utterly falls apart when we examine life through a microscope. Individual cells live and die and, like bacteria, can survive beyond the host. Are we pretending that they also have spirits? Will this invisible heavenly realm be populated largely from the very blood cell spirits that (Mormon ) heaven will have determined have no further functional place in the resurrected body ( no blood). If bacteria are somehow to small to have a spirit then at which evolutionary level do spirits turn up, jellyfish, lichen, oak trees, snakes....?
Considering the issue of evolution and Mormon theology that all spirits precede the physical body are you suggesting that spirits in heaven are evolving and that god allocates just enough spirits for each species ( so the dodos were doomed whether the sailors ate them or not) ? The problem doesn't get any better if we start suggesting that god allows certain types of spirits to inhabit multiple species ( a cat spirit in heaven could be in a lion, tiger or domesticated cat for example) because that still struggles with the evolutionary cut off points, where do birdlike dinosaur spirits get the boot and the bird spirits start getting inserted?
Do we let plants have spirits? Do we go as far as Mormon theology does and start ascribing spirits to non living ( according to scientific standards) things like rocks and planets? If you wish Cold Steel we can get a bit further in and discuss what JS really taught about spirit and we can see how incompatible it is with any practical attempt to follow these things through to their logical conclusion.
-
427
If man evolved?
by tornapart ini know anyone who believes in evolution is going to say that there is no 'if' about it.
however.... if man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years ago, why were there only about 200-300 million people alive 2,000 years ago?
surely there'd have been many billions by then?.
-
-
Qcmbr
..I think you've described being designed by a committee.
-
103
Do some x witnesses shock you despite being one?
by Seraphim23 in[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:relyonvml /> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-gb</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].
-
-
Qcmbr
I hope to shock. Sometimes its the only way to get past the filters.
-
35
At what age can a JW be baptised in the UK?
by jwfacts ini just received an email from an unbaptised publisher that made the following comment;.
in the uk the age of consent by law for a child is 16 and only then can they be baptized of their own free will.
is anyone aware of jws that have been baptised younger than 16 in the uk?.
-
-
Qcmbr
I was baptised lds at 8. If you want really crazy though have a google sometime on what I covenanted to do, age 18, in the mormon temple. Shudders.
-
427
If man evolved?
by tornapart ini know anyone who believes in evolution is going to say that there is no 'if' about it.
however.... if man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years ago, why were there only about 200-300 million people alive 2,000 years ago?
surely there'd have been many billions by then?.
-
-
Qcmbr
Lost you implied much when you mentioned conmen.
In my limited experience of seven odd years on this board it is almost exclusively people committed to an evidenceless faith position who argue against scientific knowledge. Their desire to be correct trumps their desire for knowledge so we find a good sprinkling of muslims, christian gnostics, jws, messiahs, mormons, sundry other deists,liberal christins and illiberal christians posting against simple basic scientific knowledge. Not because they have evidence against evolution, an ancient earth or some such discovery but simply because they see the threat it poses to an ancient myth they have , normally innocently, been taught to believe.
-
427
If man evolved?
by tornapart ini know anyone who believes in evolution is going to say that there is no 'if' about it.
however.... if man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years ago, why were there only about 200-300 million people alive 2,000 years ago?
surely there'd have been many billions by then?.
-
-
Qcmbr
Asking genuine questions is the root of knowledge. Deciding that you have the answer before hand and willfully ignoring the time and effort of those who put in the effort you haven't bothered with and then starting to rudely question people's credentials is the root of idiocy. You wont get kumbya and cake from people when you cr*p on their carpet.
Early days though, keep thinky thunking. I wish you the best. Knowledge is an exciting adventure if you take off the shackles of myth based belief.
-
427
If man evolved?
by tornapart ini know anyone who believes in evolution is going to say that there is no 'if' about it.
however.... if man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years ago, why were there only about 200-300 million people alive 2,000 years ago?
surely there'd have been many billions by then?.
-
-
Qcmbr
What sends me into butt clenching apoplectic, incandescent , grunty, panty bunching levels of mild English eyebrow raising is that doubting the evidence from a position of uneducated buffoonery is fine, but then leaping like a gadly on crack to the conclusion that 'I can't understand it therefore God' is absolutely , most definitely not. If Star Trek has taught us anything, and it hasn't, it's that intelligent aliens should rank several bazillion times more likely as the cause of anything unexplained than an invisible megadude with a penchant for torture and finding rich westerners' keys.
Lack of comprehension , however indignantly preserved, is not evidence for a god conclusion.