Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
I like to look at the evidence, not indulge in wishful thinking.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Qualified Observation and Spirituality
- Thread starter Mycroft
- Start date
I like to look at the evidence, not indulge in wishful thinking.
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
I don't believe in science. I don't believe in anything. I find science to be a more efficient method of solving problems than religion, philosophy, or spirituality. That's all.
Science doesn't believe in anything. It's a tool. It isn't an entity. Some people who study various scientists find evidence for dark matter, but can't yet prove it. Some find evidence for dark energy, but can't yet prove it. But they work on proving it, they don't just conclude that it is so.
And I'm not sure of anything. I just go with what the evidence indicates until it indicates something else.
outhouse
Atheistically
Which is fine.
Many do not understand how weak the human mind actually is. How we are instinctively programmed to see faces where there are none [fact] to survive from predators.
Due to the multiple states of consciousness, it is easy fro the brain to perceive things that are not there.
When you get people who play with states on consciousness and focus on in between states, you get Eastern philosophy on this, imagine that.
Human imagination is powerful.
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
Which is fine. It's when they tout it as fact that I subject it to the scrutiny all alleged facts deserve.
outhouse
Atheistically
I agree.
They assume spirit or soul, and then look for evidence to explain their belief.
No, that is wrong. Let's say we are on a jury for a homocide case. We look at all evidence witnesses, testimonies, arguments, etc. and make a judgment on the scenario that is the most reasonable to believe. Can we verify our scenario; No. But it is still correct to call it the most reasonable scenario; Yes.
Very few positions we hold on various subjects in life are 'testable'.
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
You're talking about balance of probability. That's different from believing any old cobblers just because.
That's how we judge 'reasonableness' of a position.
Correct, we shouldn't believe any old cobbler just because.
outhouse
Atheistically
Then it may not exist.
Imagination required?
No, factually in error, almost all are. Its why we have them.
outhouse
Atheistically
And he is applying a fallacy to use probability.
He is assuming the conscious mind exist, outside the mind. And all evidence shows dependence on the physical brain and the body to feed energy to the brain to keep it powered on.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and the part of you that will respond to this is no different than any other chemical reaction?
I don't believe your chemistry will answer this question.
I believe your spirit will.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and you are assuming that all of the spirits formed by the body will fail.
Probably....as the numbers are great.....
Some of the 7billion souls in this life will survive their last breath.
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
You first say you don't believe in science ...and then say...it's a useful tool.
you should make up your mind.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
So now I must include 'wishful thinking' to the previous list?
You have no line drawn.
difficult to speak of belief when you won't declare where the line is.
Don't you believe so?
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
And there are those who presume there is no spirit or soul and then close their mind to evidence of the source of their being to explain their materialistic belief...
outhouse
Atheistically
We have factual evidence that shows the mythological origins of the soul concept by ignorant people who did not know what a conscious mind even was. This predates the Abrahamic concepts.
We also have factual evidence showing questions being answered in the brain before the test subject even knows the answer.
YOU have a complete lack of credible evidence and at this point in time, a soul does not exist scientifically speaking, and was a concept born in mythology.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I agree with you that the mere conceptual claim of the existence of the soul is not evidence, but real subjective apprehension is.
Because most people do know what and who they really are, they think that this state of ignorance is not ignorance. Now it's also true that many people who believe in the existence of the soul, do it on a basis of faith, and have not experienced the subjective evidence, but in time if they are disciplined in their religious practice, they will reach their goal.
So I reiterate for your benefit...evidence of the soul does not come from external conceptualization, such a scripture, but from the inner intuitive faculty by way of non-conceptual apprehension.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
If you look at yourself closely and recognise it, then yes.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Why should we presume something for which there is no evidence? Spirit and soul are very comforting beliefs and help people cope, but then is comfort more important than truth?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
But the evidence is not in conceptual understanding, it is subjective evidence which comes about from developing the intuitive faculty whereby one learns what and who one really is in non-conceptual apprehension.
Now belief in the soul from reading scripture is conceptual understanding, and is not proof...and non-belief in the soul because science can't find evidence through scientific method is not proof......absence of evidence of soul is not evidence of absence of soul...