Reincarnation: Soul Evolution?

[MikeG]

.......there is no evidence that nullifies the existence of a soul.

Except the complete and utter lack of evidence for the existence of a soul.

Science doesn't work by accepting the existence of stuff until it is proven otherwise. You (generic you) claim the existence of something, you've got to prove it. Onus. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[John Jones]

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.

I'm wondering what your background in science is.

 

[Resume]

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.

Or folks use mystical jargon as a common ploy in an attempt to deflect attention from the ambiguous, vague and often vacuous nature of spiritual matters.

If your spiritual thingee has an affect on the material world, that can be measured and the scientific method applied.

So there's that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

God, Souls and Demons?
Has this thread slipped through a timewarp to the 14th Century?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

(I will start with the easy humorous one.)

Answer - Only if it is a step up on the ladder. For some of us it may be. (tongue-in-cheek)

OK. What then determines what is a step up vs a step down? Is being a marmoset better than being a lobster?

Why? Why? Why?

Can you please rank?:























(Sorry about the unicorn.)

 

[Andy_Ross]

By coincidence you got the ranking exactly right. Maybe you were guided by a disembodied soul, bored with waiting for re-assignment.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Hallucination and perceiving a ghostly event were two very different experiences for me.

I wasn't asking about you, although I can see how my question was vague enough to allow for this answer. Let's go with it for now.

That you believe you can perceive a difference between these two experiences in no way indicates which of them must be "real", if any. What is it about your hallucinations that led you to dismiss them as mere hallucinations? What is it about "perceiving a ghostly event" that led you to accept it as genuine, and not, for example, just a different type of hallucination?

As for what I was trying to get at: How do you reliably test the claims of others in these matters?

Since I function on a high level ordinarily (not so much in my old age), I would say I am not prone to suggestion or pareidolia. I cannot see animal or human shapes in clouds or mist or in the dark, even if I try. I am skeptical and curious.

Not being prone to pareidolia is not an indication of skepticism. And I'm not sure why you believe it should be a result of functioning "on a high level" (whatever that even means).

I have seen a person having a hallucination. The man thought there was poison gas coming down from the ceiling.

And if you claimed to see a ghost when others claim to see nothing, what would be your conclusion? If you were to see a ghost with no other witnesses present, do you believe that makes your experience genuine by default? To what extents would you go to disprove your experience as genuine?

 

[abaddon]

It's just one unevidenced claim after another in this thread.

 

[Thor 2]

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

Just wondering if gender is considered in your theory about souls? I mean do souls have gender?

If they did it could explain a lot of the problems experienced by many today. These problems are exacerbated by the religious, but perhaps the problem is because your god, (or his little helpers - oops sorry that's Santa), has not been paying enough attention, and attaches a female soul to a male embryo or visa versa.

 

[PartSkeptic]

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.

I see you are back to personal insults. I will go back to ignoring you. This thread is at its expiry date anyhow.

 

[PartSkeptic]

That you believe you can perceive a difference between these two experiences in no way indicates which of them must be "real", if any. What is it about your hallucinations that led you to dismiss them as mere hallucinations? What is it about "perceiving a ghostly event" that led you to accept it as genuine, and not, for example, just a different type of hallucination?

The first hallucination, I had unknowingly eaten a cookie with marijuana in it. I experienced the Ultimate Intelligence, and a couple of alternate life paths. In the hallucination, I was told/informed/understood that being "high" was the only way I could experience this. This was so I would write it off as an hallucination. And until recently I did. Being a hallucination does not necessarily mean that I was not given a glimpse of what the Ultimate Reality was.

The other hallucinations were seeing objects distort and lose shape and color. The analytical part of my mind still functioned well and I knew that what I thought I saw was not real.

Twice I have seen a person's face distort into something not very pleasant. The first time, I remarked about to the person I was with. They said that they experienced the same thing. While I know what I saw did not physically occur, it was an accurate portrayal of the "real" person. Again, I know that the perception is not what my eyes were seeing.

Another time I was with a person who was trying to point out spirits in a room. I could not see them. But I did see a "black mist" in the corner. The other person confirmed that they "saw" that also. I could also "feel" a cold curtain which formed a barrier keeping them in. It was like putting ones hand into a curtain of cold air (but a different feeling to cold). Very distinct boundaries. It was repeatable, and as "real" as putting ones hand into a bath of cold water.

As for what I was trying to get at: How do you reliably test the claims of others in these matters?

You have to ask a lot of questions, and get consistent answers without evasion. The frauds tend to double-down and exaggerate their story, or change the subject, or get really agitated.

And if you claimed to see a ghost when others claim to see nothing, what would be your conclusion? If you were to see a ghost with no other witnesses present, do you believe that makes your experience genuine by default? To what extents would you go to disprove your experience as genuine?

My conclusion is what I have always claimed. People are not seeing with their eyes. They are perceiving images in their mind. In the case above, there were a number of people who could see the same things over a period of years, at any time.

Where these images are coming from, and why, is the crux of the matter.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Just wondering if gender is considered in your theory about souls? I mean do souls have gender?

If they did it could explain a lot of the problems experienced by many today. These problems are exacerbated by the religious, but perhaps the problem is because your god, (or his little helpers - oops sorry that's Santa), has not been paying enough attention, and attaches a female soul to a male embryo or visa versa.

You have not read the thread properly. See my post #76.

 

[bruto]

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.

Yikes. The arrogance and ignorance of that statement are beyond one's ability to comment, at least with any modicum of politeness.

 

[Lolly123]

Except the complete and utter lack of evidence for the existence of a soul.

Science doesn't work by accepting the existence of stuff until it is proven otherwise. You (generic you) claim the existence of something, you've got to prove it. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 12

You are detached from the great bulk of humanity and are in a small minority if you really are a complete disbeliever.
Seriously, I cannot think of a single person outside of anonymous users on forums who have absolutely no belief in God.
You have an inability to comprehend how ridiculous it sounds to normal people to make such statements, for example, of creating parameters for belief based on a supposed scientific ability to resolve any of the important questions of our own existence.

 

[Lolly123]

I'm wondering what your background in science is.

OH WOW!!
Great comeback!
Do you really think I need to be a scientist to know anything about science?
Well the absurdity of the people on this forum is overwhelming, this claim that somewhere out there there are "real" scientists that understand all about life and death and the universe and why we are here, and it then shoots holes through all the human philosophy that has existed for tens of thousands of years.

Well, it is just empty dreams and wishful thinking, that somehow science will save you from the eternal flames of Hell.

 

[Lolly123]

Or folks use mystical jargon as a common ploy in an attempt to deflect attention from the ambiguous, vague and often vacuous nature of spiritual matters.

If your spiritual thingee has an affect on the material world, that can be measured and the scientific method applied.

So there's that.

I am sure there are certain people out there who would fit that description but it is completely irrelevant to real philosophers, and students of scripture, and the devout.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 0 and rule 12

Number one, a person needs the ability to differentiate between a "thing" and the spiritual, which is the power of thought.

The effects are everywhere and all around us and saturates every aspect of our existence.

 

[Pup]

Seriously, I cannot think of a single person outside of anonymous users on forums who have absolutely no belief in God.

You could look through this list and see if any of the names ring a bell.

 

[Lolly123]

Yikes. The arrogance and ignorance of that statement are beyond one's ability to comment, at least with any modicum of politeness.

Well, you can't, that is my point, people who are actual atheists are only a group when you can round up the scarce commodity from all around the world to go to a forum like this, and virtually do not exist outside of the cyber world.

The point being, you cannot somehow create a body of work that you can present to persuade normal people into giving up their beliefs.
You have to be born with the affliction, it is a defect that occurs and you can justify yourself in your own mind, but you cannot like create a church of the unbelievers out of the general population.

Of course there are lots of people who do not believe one thing or another.

For example, I being a Christian, and if I was somehow exported to a Muslim country, the people there would regard me as a complete unbeliever.
Well, that is something that exists in about all the population of the world, everyone is going to not believe in religions that go against their own religion, but that is a long ways from not believing in some sort of God out there.

 

[Lolly123]

You could look through this list and see if any of the names ring a bell.

Well, I am sure that over the course of history there were people who others can after the fact claim as atheists.
What I meant was people who I knew personally and had the opportunity to know how they really felt.

I would recommend that anyone who thinks they are an atheist, to pray to god, to heal you from your lack of belief.

 

[ComfySlippers]

I think you are suffering from some form of autism.

You are detached from the great bulk of humanity and are in a small minority if you really are a complete disbeliever.

Seriously, I cannot think of a single person outside of anonymous users on forums who have absolutely no belief in God. You have an inability to comprehend how ridiculous it sounds to normal people to make such statements, for example, of creating parameters for belief based on a supposed scientific ability to resolve any of the important questions of our own existence.

Did an adult actually just say this?