Reincarnation: Soul Evolution?

[MikeG]

Boy, PS, what a tangled web you weave.

You seem to have built a make-believe world based only on hope.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Boy, PS, what a tangled web you weave.

You seem to have built a make-believe world based only on hope.

...and magic beans.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So souls don't have to reincarnate, they get to take time off and hang around in 'Soul land'?

Who decides how long they stay?
Who assigns a new body?
Who 'judges' ?
How do souls in soul land get back to our world to interact?

Your theory seems to be very complex and based on wishful thinking.

 

[bruto]

Here we go again with the spirit occupying space. How does that work?

Most reincarnationists suggest that there is a purpose to the thing, and that purpose usually seems to involve some gradual improvement. Learning lessons that we get to apply. It's sure hard to see this happening. If it is, it certainly does not seem to be very efficient. What is the time frame?

 

[abaddon]

I chose my words carefully. "The soul and the brain are pretty much tied together." It does not mean that they occupy the same space. The spirit does. Spatially.

The soul could stay in the dimension that it is in after death. In other words never leave. That does not matter. The important part is that the soul "identifies" with a person, and the connection is broken when the person dies. The connection is done through spirit, and can be simply a transfer of information - upload and downloading. The "connection" is also not of interest.

When the person dies, and the spirit is left to decay, the soul is "judged". It may get promoted or demoted according to its deeds in life. If its life was short (died as a baby for example), its status need not change. If it wasted its "life on earth" and achieved nothing, and showed no potential it may just cease to exist, although that is probably rare. Whether Hitler or serial murderers get another chance is debatable. Most of us would like them to suffer punishment - and maybe they do.

One wonders what bad people came back as.

Here we go again, claiming to know things you cannot possibly know.

All you have above is idle and baseless conjecture.

I have absolutely considered that there is no such thing as a soul. I am well aware that my belief is a construct that fits experiences I have had, and I know I have no scientific proof.

IOW it's a fantasy you simply made up.

I am careful not to offend some of my close relatives and friends who are very religious, and believe in the existence of a soul (and that Jesus is God). There can be no debate with them, and I do not try. I go through the motions when with them without being deceitful.

By definition that IS deceitful.

My decision to believe is a considered one, and I can change if there is reason to.

Can you? Reason didn't make you believe, you simply decided to believe by your own admission. Why would any reason induce you to cease believing?

 

[PartSkeptic]

Here we go again, claiming to know things you cannot possibly know.

All you have above is idle and baseless conjecture.


IOW it's a fantasy you simply made up.

By definition that IS deceitful.

Can you? Reason didn't make you believe, you simply decided to believe by your own admission. Why would any reason induce you to cease believing?

We come back to personal experience. I have decided my experiences cannot be explained by science, despite being aware of how the mind can be tricked.

And when science can explain what came before the Big Bang (and before that and before that) I will be forced to drop my theories. Or if science can explain how some of my experiences have a logical explanation (other than serious hallucination and delusion) then I will also reconsider.

Not deceit. I respect the rituals, think they work for some, and honestly take part. I may have my doubts, but that is not the time and place to show them.. When people of other faiths (or no faith) go to a place of worship do they not follow the customs out of respect?

 

[PartSkeptic]

Here we go again with the spirit occupying space. How does that work?

Most reincarnationists suggest that there is a purpose to the thing, and that purpose usually seems to involve some gradual improvement. Learning lessons that we get to apply. It's sure hard to see this happening. If it is, it certainly does not seem to be very efficient. What is the time frame?

I would think that there has been tremendous improvement from the time we were apes or Neanderthals. Certainly in intelligence, and a lot in terms of morals until recently.

Satan plays a part in trying to cause mischief and slow down or undo Gods work. When I see the conflict, corruption and moral decay in the world, it seems like Satan is winning. A pandemic will realign priorities.

There are people with serious behavioral problems and wrong ideas. Satan uses demons (warped spiritual entities) to attach themselves to humans. Some people can see these as a black shape on or around them.

It is possible to drive these demons off, and see a remarkable change in people. It is also possible to explain such amazing transitions as due to the person seeing the error of their ways. However, many of these happen quickly when there is a ritual of sorts.

You say I am making this up. I experienced my late wife "seeing" a demon on a person, and seeing the change in them after ritual (not exorcism).

You have say it is just the human mind, and you may be right. You are definitely right IF there is no God, and no spirits/souls. But your explanation is that ordinary people have serious problems with hallucinations that occur and then coincidentally fit a sequence of subsequent events.

Just how far can one take this combination of hallucination, coincidence and confirmation bias to explain events?

 

[Pixel42]

Refusing to accept that coincidences occur no more often than would be expected by chance is not "serious hallucination and delusion". It's just ordinary stubborness. Many people still choose to put more stock in their personal experiences than in the results of decades of careful scientific investigation, no matter how much evidence they are shown that to do so is foolish. They are not hallucinating or delusional, they are simply wrong.

 

[PartSkeptic]

So souls don't have to reincarnate, they get to take time off and hang around in 'Soul land'?

Who decides how long they stay?
Who assigns a new body?
Who 'judges' ?
How do souls in soul land get back to our world to interact?

Your theory seems to be very complex and based on wishful thinking.

I am impressed with your concise and to the point questions and comments.

God decides the length of time, the assignment, and does the judgment.

A more appropriate term for "soul land" is "soul dimension". My experience was that there was no land, no sea, no sky, no universe. There were shapes that came and went. There were no other souls in the immediate vicinity, so I got the impression that one could choose which souls one interact with.

The more advanced souls could interact with lesser souls, but the lesser souls could not mingle with those on higher planes. It was kind of a "gated neighborhood". The ghettos were where the souls existed in their own Hell.

The theory is complex. If souls exist I am sure they are constrained by a complex set of graded rules governed by an intelligent being such as God. Intelligence entities recognize that there are "shades of grey" in everything. We humans recognize that morality is unusually complex.

My life has been a series of psychic events, that have been rare in type and occurrence. Many (the more significant ones) have happened only once. Some like mental telepathy and predictions and "knowing" things have been with me since I was a teenager. It is only in the last decade that I have tried to make sense of it all, and it seemed that more events happened, and in a sequence that helped develop the story.

Wishful thinking? I do not see what I am supposed to be "wishing for?" I do not fully understand why my life has taken this route, and I am going with the flow and trying to make sense of it. That is why I am on this site. I do not expect to convert anyone or expect anyone (on this site) to believe what I am saying.

People do not easily change their belief systems no matter what they are.

Irrespective of the truth of existence of the universe, my purpose is to live a good live and be constructive for no other purpose than it benefits society (including family and friends), and makes me feel good abut myself. If there is an afterlife, that is an added benefit.

 

[MikeG]

........People do not easily change their belief systems no matter what they are.......

Particularly true if they aren't offered reasons to change. You have given nothing in support of your beliefs over two long threads other than "I believe" and "in my experience". I am hopeful that you are beginning to realise just how useless that is to those trying to understand what you are claiming.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Refusing to accept that coincidences occur no more often than would be expected by chance is not "serious hallucination and delusion". It's just ordinary stubborness. Many people still choose to put more stock in their personal experiences than in the results of decades of careful scientific investigation, no matter how much evidence they are shown that to do so is foolish. They are not hallucinating or delusional, they are simply wrong.

Or as one poster put it to me once. "Wongity, wrongity, wrong."

You have your view point. And you may be "Rightity, rightity, right."

BTW. I accept that coincidence and confirmation bias explains many things that a lot of people would see as possibly supernatural. I am referring to unusual and exceptional events where I cannot see coincidence as an explanation, or part of the explanation.

Stubbornness? Permit me some humor - Could my previous soul have reincarnated from a mule?

My life in general in the last few decades has been that I am very easy going unless I am in charge. When I have been in charge I have been successful.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Particularly true if they aren't offered reasons to change. You have given nothing in support of your beliefs over two long threads other than "I believe" and "in my experience". I am hopeful that you are beginning to realise just how useless that is to those trying to understand what you are claiming.

Ok. I have gotten good questions and feedback. Not useless to me. And you guys have an idea of how strange some ideas can be.

My ideas are not at odds with the basics premises of religion in general. To me it is a better explanation of some of the claims than the dogma that has emerged from clerics trying to fit an explanation to teachings and events.

And my ideas are not tied to any religion in particular. I think God may have given each religion a piece of the puzzle.

 

[Pixel42]

BTW. I accept that coincidence and confirmation bias explains many things that a lot of people would see as possibly supernatural. I am referring to unusual and exceptional events where I cannot see coincidence as an explanation, or part of the explanation.

Which is of course exactly what those who persist in believing in dowsing, homeopathy, psychics and many other supposedly paranormal phenomena say, despite the decades of careful scientific investigation that proves them wrong. Their experiences cannot possibly be explained by coincidence either, no matter what the silly scientists say.

It's sheer arrogance. Other people might be fooled, but my instinct for what can or cannot be explained by coincidence is infallible.

 

[Lolly123]

What? So at some stage there were souls without place? The souls willed the universe into existence?

Why do you religious types twist yourself up in knots with such nonsense? You get to redefine words such as "universe" to suit your own ends, whereas the reality is that the concept of souls is a human invention, probably an attempt by people thousands of years ago, who didn't have access to science, to explain the world around them. It was their best stab at an explanation, along with gods, for a world they didn't understand. Now that we do understand it, you really have no excuse for clinging on to primitive notions like "souls" and "spirits".

The fact is, trying to justify the existence of souls, without a shred of evidence, is in the same intellectual waste bin as trying to justify magic and miracles.

Having a place is something that came about with the existence of the physical universe, so when there was no universe, souls would not have been "place-less", since that would have been meaningless, considering the very concept of "place" would not have been conceived of yet.

And yes, the souls would have willed the physical universe into existence, by first conceiving of such a thing, then describing how a universe would be exactly, and so it then existed.

I don't think that the ancients who understood that people had souls were in any way more "primitive" than we are today, merely appearing to be more sophisticated by being surrounded by so many technical devices.

Being "religious" is the normal state for people, while not being religious is a cultural aberration from a getting together between fellow mentally defective people without the ability to grasp spiritual ideas.

Science of course is unable to identify a physical thing, "the soul" simply because it is spiritual and not a physical thing, since "things" are merely the invention of the collective souls of the pre-universe.

 

[Resume]

Science of course is unable to identify a physical thing, "the soul" simply because it is spiritual and not a physical thing, since "things" are merely the invention of the collective souls of the pre-universe.

Really? Go on. Really.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Which is of course exactly what those who persist in believing in dowsing, homeopathy, psychics and many other supposedly paranormal phenomena say, despite the decades of careful scientific investigation that proves them wrong. Their experiences cannot possibly be explained by coincidence either, no matter what the silly scientists say.

It's sheer arrogance. Other people might be fooled, but my instinct for what can or cannot be explained by coincidence is infallible.

There is a huge amount of fraud in the psychic "professions". Particularly in the ones who seek publicity. I have said before that, if there is a God and if the supernatural exists, then it is controlled by God who will not allow testing of such phenomena. Or the set-up of the test imposes a "stress" on the tester that blanks out their abilities. It might be both.

My supposition (which is used by many others including the fakes) is taken as a convenient excuse for failure of any testing. I see it as confirmation that God will not allow such events to be run for test purposes.

I found most of the arguments against my anecdotes down-play my descriptions and essentially say that I was mistaken (the polite ones used this word). People try to equate their own experiences to mine and say "See. Not so remarkable."

I never said scientists were silly, or even implied it. There are some that make some conclusions that when closely examined are found wanting. I have not claimed to be infallible. That is a straw man. I have given my conjecture based on my experiences in open honesty.

This attack is not on the logic of my construct, but the underlying experiences. If my experiences are not due to the afterlife or supernatural then the whole construct is false. I accept that.

 

[MikeG]

Having a place is something that came about with the existence of the physical universe, so when there was no universe, souls would not have been "place-less", since that would have been meaningless, considering the very concept of "place" would not have been conceived of yet.

And yes, the souls would have willed the physical universe into existence, by first conceiving of such a thing, then describing how a universe would be exactly, and so it then existed.

I don't think that the ancients who understood that people had souls were in any way more "primitive" than we are today, merely appearing to be more sophisticated by being surrounded by so many technical devices.

Being "religious" is the normal state for people, while not being religious is a cultural aberration from a getting together between fellow mentally defective people without the ability to grasp spiritual ideas.

Science of course is unable to identify a physical thing, "the soul" simply because it is spiritual and not a physical thing, since "things" are merely the invention of the collective souls of the pre-universe.

Well, I've read some tosh on here over the years, but this post makes a really nice little collection of some of the daftest unevidenced nonsense ever put together. Thanks for making it so easy to find, all in one handy little post.

Now, just pull some evidence for any of that crap from the same orifice as you got that lot from, so that we can have some sort of a discussion. Oh, and how about letting us know which education system you were brought up in, so as we know who to blame.

 

[MikeG]

.......This attack is not on the logic of my construct.......

I pretty sure that you can see why that might be, yourself, without our help.

 

[Pup]

Being "religious" is the normal state for people, while not being religious is a cultural aberration from a getting together between fellow mentally defective people without the ability to grasp spiritual ideas.

I don't see much difference in the motivations of religion and science. Both have to start with curiosity, desire for an outcome, and search for understanding and control. Why does lightning strike some places and not others? How can we make the hunt a success? What caused the drought and how can we end it?

The religious answers came first, because they were the easiest. One can make up stories about gods and spirits and talk about ways to appease them. It's the same idea as a hypothesis and experiments, but without controls to prevent one from fooling oneself. One can keep refining the sacrifice or the rain dance until finally the drought ends, and then announce that's how to appease the rain gods.

The scientific method uses the same natural curiosity, but with a better understanding about human biases, experimental controls, and better ability to collect data. I don't see the scientific method as the last resort of mentally defective people. Instead I see it as the best way to search for answers to the questions that humans have wondered about since they first evolved the brainpower to wonder.

 

[Lolly123]

. . . . . . . I don't see the scientific method as the last resort of mentally defective people. Instead I see it as the best way to search for answers to the questions that humans have wondered about since they first evolved the brainpower to wonder.

You may not see it as such, but for example, certain people on this forum use "scientific method", meaning that catch phrase, as a last resort when they are perfectly clueless on how to even attempt to begin a discussion on spiritual matters, on account of the defect I mentioned in my earlier post.

Now, as for actual science, rather than the desperate call to science as a god replacement, there is no evidence that nullifies the existence of a soul.