The immortality of the 'soul'

[Mark]

And if you're even vaguely interested in trying to understand all of the foregoing 'nonsense', read this in its entirety.

But please, don't expect me to explain it all. At least, not till I feel less like shit.

[david johnson]

well, that was certainly interesting    i never met anyone who believed in the ether.
what particular religions does this propose to represent?

dj

[karlhenning]

. . . At least, not till I feel less like shit.

I hope that is mighty soon (for your sake, mon ami)!

[Mark]

i never met anyone who believed in the ether.

Never said I believed - don't assume.

what particular religions does this propose to represent?

It doesn't, although its basis would be the Judeao-Christian tradition.

I hope that is mighty soon (for your sake, mon ami)!

Thank you, sir.

[david johnson]

'Never said I believed - don't assume.'

i did not mention that i thought you did.

'It doesn't, although its basis would be the Judeao-Christian tradition.'

that would be doubtful.  they don't believe in gods of other solar systems as the chart shows.

catholics do accept a purgatory, and paul did describe what he felt was a third heaven.
the charts seem to me more like a hodge-podge of religious ideas.

dj

[orbital]

Not read Crowley (though I know who he was). You read either?

Not his esoteric works, but Diary of a Drug Fiend is one hell of a novel. The man had plenty of literary talent. Too bad he did not write many more fiction.

[Philoctetes]

'Never said I believed - don't assume.'

i did not mention that i thought you did.

'It doesn't, although its basis would be the Judeao-Christian tradition.'

that would be doubtful.  they don't believe in gods of other solar systems as the chart shows.

catholics do accept a purgatory, and paul did describe what he felt was a third heaven.
the charts seem to me more like a hodge-podge of religious ideas.

dj

Which is why his 'thoughts' should be precluded as I indicated earlier. The mistake that 'newageism' is esoteric is common among the insipid.

[eyeresist]

This reincarnation stuff sounds more Vedantic than Christian.

[mahler10th]

I'm surprised anyone feels confident enough to say something like this. Far wiser to admit that we don't know.

We don't know what?  We don't know what we were doing 139 years ago?
Well the reason we don't know is because we didn't exist.  Anything else is just theoretical wishful thinking.  Of course I have confidence in saying such a thing because there is no empirical evidence to suggest otherwise.

[Mark]

'Never said I believed - don't assume.'

i did not mention that i thought you did.

You're quite right. Please accept my apologies.

'It doesn't, although its basis would be the Judeao-Christian tradition.'

that would be doubtful.  they don't believe in gods of other solar systems as the chart shows.

catholics do accept a purgatory, and paul did describe what he felt was a third heaven.
the charts seem to me more like a hodge-podge of religious ideas.

Without wishing to be rude, you haven't read the text I linked to, nor will you, I suspect. So whatever your doubts - and given that the charts posted are clearly without context - may I suggest you reserve judgement until you've had time to look into the matter in more depth?

Which is why his 'thoughts' should be precluded as I indicated earlier.

Wow! Flattery indeed, Kevin. If these 'thoughts' were, as you erroneously claim, mine, do you really think I'd waste time here trying to elucidate them to someone like you? I suspect I'd have far more interesting things to occupy my time. And I note you've still not been man enough to offer us your suggested reading list on this matter. Perhaps you should sit down and be quiet.

This reincarnation stuff sounds more Vedantic than Christian.

Correct ... and incorrect. I'm not going to try to persuade you that the idea of reincarnation existed in the original biblical texts, because I've neither the time nor the stomach to be derided for suggesting such. But again, my recommended authors list earlier in this thread will tell you everything you could want to know, should you choose to investigate their writings.

We don't know what?  We don't know what we were doing 139 years ago?
Well the reason we don't know is because we didn't exist.  Anything else is just theoretical wishful thinking.  Of course I have confidence in saying such a thing because there is no empirical evidence to suggest otherwise.

You've missed my point, John. Not wilfully, I think, but accidentally. I'm saying that none of us can say with absolute certainty whether there really is more to life than what happens between the cradle and the grave. So again, I suggest it might be wisest to reserve judgement.


Now, with all of that out of the way, I shall retire from this thread. And indeed, this forum. Looking through my posts last night, I was horrified to note just how many of them are NOT about classical music. That isn't good - and it's a bit insulting to those who are here to discuss music. So I think I should withdraw until such time as I'm inclined to contribute more to music threads than I am to be drawn into topics which, in all honesty, have no place in this forum.

[david johnson]

'Without wishing to be rude, you haven't read the text I linked to, nor will you, I suspect. So whatever your doubts - and given that the charts posted are clearly without context - may I suggest you reserve judgement until you've had time to look into the matter in more depth?'

if four charts were not enough, why post that much?  i understand the material quite well, thank you.

'Now, with all of that out of the way, I shall retire from this thread. And indeed, this forum. Looking through my posts last night, I was horrified to note just how many of them are NOT about classical music. That isn't good - and it's a bit insulting to those who are here to discuss music. So I think I should withdraw until such time as I'm inclined to contribute more to music threads than I am to be drawn into topics which, in all honesty, have no place in this forum.'

one does not have to visit the threads that do not pertain to music.

dj

[mahler10th]

What a shame Mark has gone.  I really did like the guy, and he was one of few who allowed his own face to be known, unlike the rest of us who keep hiding behind avatars.  It was Marks example I followed by sticking my own crabbit features on this forum so people could 'see' whos ass they were either kicking or agreeing with.

Mark said:  I'm saying that none of us can say with absolute certainty whether there really is more to life than what happens between the cradle and the grave.

Well, yes, but the reason we can't say with certainty is because we were all unborn, say, 139 years ago - in purely biological terms, this means we were dead, lifeless, nowhere and nothing.  No activity of life has been found in a body dead for more than a day, its energy dissipated...gone...stone dead.  I can say with at least some credulity that we're all going that way and we only appeared through the miracle of biological unison.

Oh come on Mark, come back, this is a great discussion! 

[Lethevich]

M10-

This forum is split between people in it for the long haul and those who come and go, whether by deleting accounts or just not visiting. They almost always do come back, often on multiple occasions...

[drogulus]

i see.
i must say that immortal does not mean eternal.  our soul is immortal, non-dying, but it did not pre-exist before we did, as i understand it.
that combo of spirit and body that is you did not exist before your birth.
do not be so sure as to where we are headed.

dj

     I don't see why not. I ate a carrot, and I'm sure it doesn't exist anymore, at least as a carrot.

     Why, I wonder, should we not be sure about what can be verified, but treat the incomprehensible and unverifiable as certainties? Also, if we can have certainties about afterlives, souls and gods and such, why can't we have similar intuitions about their nonexistence? If the pro and con intuitions then cancel out, as they properly should, that puts the ball squarely back in the verificationist court, does it not?  Of course it does, since that's how reasoning about evidence grabbed the advantage in the first place. 

M10-

This forum is split between people in it for the long haul and those who come and go, whether by deleting accounts or just not visiting. They almost always do come back, often on multiple occasions...

      That's because they're immortal.

[Homo Aestheticus]

ardent:

i can not adequately describe the attributes of the supernatural using the natural terms i understand.
He seems to have emotions and can feel/show agape, anger, peace and violence, creativity.
one constant is that we, in His image, are filled with various emotions.

dj

David,

Thanks.

I must say that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent who can have and feel such emotions is difficult to accept... I know a few people who have gotten over, say anger and violence.... But o.k.     

I am not shocked by the persistence of religious belief in the West because I do not believe it exists. It is simply not possible for people who know as much as modern Westerners do to believe in the central tenets of Judaism or Christianity or the other major religions.

[Joe_Campbell]

David,

Thanks.

I must say that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent who can have and feel such emotions is difficult to accept... I know a few people who have gotten over, say anger and violence.... But o.k.     

I am not shocked by the persistence of religious belief in the West because I do not believe it exists. It is simply not possible for people who know as much as modern Westerners do to believe in the central tenets of Judaism or Christianity or the other major religions.

You came to this via the back door! Surely this thread wasn't another attempt at a jab at Christianity?

FWIW, I remember DavidW saying he was an atheist but believed in a soul. I wonder what his thoughts towards your original question would be...

[david johnson]

David,

Thanks.

I must say that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent who can have and feel such emotions is difficult to accept... I know a few people who have gotten over, say anger and violence.... But o.k.     

I am not shocked by the persistence of religious belief in the West because I do not believe it exists. It is simply not possible for people who know as much as modern Westerners do to believe in the central tenets of Judaism or Christianity or the other major religions.

maybe you can quit being shocked and get with the program.  you surely don't think all believers are fools!
what do you think the central tenets are?

dj

[drogulus]

   

I am not shocked by the persistence of religious belief in the West because I do not believe it exists. It is simply not possible for people who know as much as modern Westerners do to believe in the central tenets of Judaism or Christianity or the other major religions.

     It might be better to approach this from the angle of how beliefs differ from what they are taken for. They are commonly commitments and not statements about truths. Believers exhibit confusion on this point, since they can't decide whether a fact is in question or a value they are duty bound to uphold. That's why not believing is often portrayed as a moral failing rather than an error of judgment.

     People reveal what they really think in different ways, such as their lack of curiosity about the supposedly important "fact" of the existence of supernatural phenomena. If it's important it must be investigated thoroughly, you would think. But instead all investigation is invalidated preemptively due to a curious insight about the limits of understanding, which can't be questioned but only accepted.

     So I'm in partial agreement with you, in that belief is really more about what one professes, not what one actually thinks is true. To believe in something is to want to believe it, even if you can't. Daniel Dennett points out that it's actually hard to tell who among the believers believe in the god and who merely think belief is a good thing. Being in favor of the god is often taken as a belief equivalent, and there's no reason for believers to inquire too closely on the subject. Actual believers may only be a minority, and it would not be welcome news that most attempts at belief are failures.

[david johnson]

perhaps actual disbelievers are the minority 
i still wonder exactly what you group under basic tenets.  they'll probably be different than mine.

dj

[mahler10th]

I can't 'believe' in theories and ideas which stretch beyond our pea brained understanding.  Is your idea of a 'soul' he same as mine?  Is there a uniform conception of 'soul' on which we can all agree?  Nope.  I don't think a 'soul' has been identified through palpable evidence - I don't expect my 'soul' to be active in 462 years because it has not been tested or measured or proven to exist.  Metaphysics is purely theoretical.

Now then.  Where did I put that test tube...