the classic debate between those who believe that consciousness is merely the result of the operation of the brain, and those who believe that it is apart from the brain, like the idea of a soul or the classic dualistic distinction between mind and body, is a well-known one.. however the thought has occurred that when people try to convince me that the soul cannot be real; soul in the sense of consciousness being a separate thing to the operation of the brain, then really the materialistic non spiritual view is in fact a rehash of animism, strange as that might sound.. animism is the idea that soul, spirit, consciousness, or whatever it might be called, exists in plants, animals, things, objects, places or basically in everything and anything in the material world.
the view of some is that very primitive cultures had this wide category of spiritual belief, which eventually evolved into the all the religions, faiths and spiritualties of today.
some of the faiths of modern times are not defined as animistic because these draw a distinction between soul and body or in modern parlance, consciousness and brain.. so in very ancient times, at the dawn of human spiritual belief, the sun, for example, rising and setting was seen not so much as being caused by the proverbial spaghetti monster but as being the proverbial spaghetti monster.
Your points are as fallacious as the OP and title itself
if one rejects the idea of a soul, they are not an animist (who believes everything has a soul or is conscious).
one needs a brain to process stuff; one cannot experience things without. where does the experience lie if not within the brain?
the classic debate between those who believe that consciousness is merely the result of the operation of the brain, and those who believe that it is apart from the brain, like the idea of a soul or the classic dualistic distinction between mind and body, is a well-known one.. however the thought has occurred that when people try to convince me that the soul cannot be real; soul in the sense of consciousness being a separate thing to the operation of the brain, then really the materialistic non spiritual view is in fact a rehash of animism, strange as that might sound.. animism is the idea that soul, spirit, consciousness, or whatever it might be called, exists in plants, animals, things, objects, places or basically in everything and anything in the material world.
the view of some is that very primitive cultures had this wide category of spiritual belief, which eventually evolved into the all the religions, faiths and spiritualties of today.
some of the faiths of modern times are not defined as animistic because these draw a distinction between soul and body or in modern parlance, consciousness and brain.. so in very ancient times, at the dawn of human spiritual belief, the sun, for example, rising and setting was seen not so much as being caused by the proverbial spaghetti monster but as being the proverbial spaghetti monster.
I believe there is absolutely a state of consciousness. This state has not been fully studied.
Agreed.
That human consciousness is a result of brain activity is clearly apparent.
Exactly what it is and how it works is not understood and thus cannot be measured, yet it exists.
This doesn't mean a soul exists.
ot law required jews to take the lead in stoning a family member who became apostate.. the watchtower has lamented the fact that the law of the land now forbids them from doing so.. if the law permitted it, as it does in some musim countries, and if the watchtower required it, would your family obey?.
my parents are good people and i believe their love for me is genuine, but i think they would follow orders.. what about yours?.
I have no idea what other people would do in a hypothetical situation.
i've always wondered that.
recently i asked that question on another thread and didn't really get ananswer.
cofty made an excellent point that we often hear what it isn't, but that really isn't useful.. so, what is it?
You can prove scientifically that what you are is just merely atoms, molecules and cells.
Is this all you are?
How do you measure "you"?
i've always wondered that.
recently i asked that question on another thread and didn't really get ananswer.
cofty made an excellent point that we often hear what it isn't, but that really isn't useful.. so, what is it?
What definition of spirit are you referring to?
Again...
i've always wondered that.
recently i asked that question on another thread and didn't really get ananswer.
cofty made an excellent point that we often hear what it isn't, but that really isn't useful.. so, what is it?
Congratulations
You have a survey of a select group of opinions from a less than visible minority.
You win?
lmao
i've always wondered that.
recently i asked that question on another thread and didn't really get ananswer.
cofty made an excellent point that we often hear what it isn't, but that really isn't useful.. so, what is it?
The question is wide open. Can you tell us what spirit is comprised of? So far we are no closer to an answer.
Please be specific with regard to what you are asking. is a spirit defined as a discrete sentient being or a part of human existence?
Pick one. So far no one has had an answer for either except as a metaphor for something else.
Well, that's the question asked of you. Please answer the question.
i've always wondered that.
recently i asked that question on another thread and didn't really get ananswer.
cofty made an excellent point that we often hear what it isn't, but that really isn't useful.. so, what is it?
Perhaps one should widen their perspective with regard to answers to their questions.
A fundamental question remains with regard to the OP, is spirit defined as a discrete entity or as a part of human existence?
The two are wildly different in question and answer.
i've always wondered that.
recently i asked that question on another thread and didn't really get ananswer.
cofty made an excellent point that we often hear what it isn't, but that really isn't useful.. so, what is it?
You could always ask rather than assume.
I did ask and the question was dismissed and/or ignored as irrelevant. Please be consistent in your answers.
That's never been said by anyone. Please don't make things up.
I made nothing up. You have no interest in discussing this aspect of the word. Perhaps you should be more discrete and specific in your questions.
That simply replaces one term with no meaning with another with no meaning. It does nothing to get us closer to an answer.
I beg to differ that it has no meaning. Philosophy has meaning, and is as intangible as it's subject. That's the point I and others try to make that you dismiss.
i've always wondered that.
recently i asked that question on another thread and didn't really get ananswer.
cofty made an excellent point that we often hear what it isn't, but that really isn't useful.. so, what is it?
Well said, jgnat
However I doubt the OP is interested in the idea and philosophy of the word spirit as it pertains to one's existence, based on responses to questions posed on this subject.
That a dictionary defines one aspect of spirit as the immaterial nature of a person's existence doesn't seem to qualify as an answer.
Only hard evidence proving the existence of discrete spirit beings is allowed it would seem.
