I don't believe in Christianity primarily because of the brain

[Drich]

Did you not read the article?

That was the primary take way from it, was a defination the article gives coinsides/works with the 2007 Theory of Biocentrism. The old term 'soul' is being described in the theory as it's primary biological life force. It is conscientiousness. 

That is your definition. This theory explains makes an attempt to account for Conscientiousness as a product of biology. which Robert Lanza, M.D., the currently Chief Scientific Officer at the Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Adjunct Professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

For the purpose of this article drew parallels with His/our understanding of the word soul.

Both you and bobbie-value want to poo poo on this topic without doing any of the leg work.. Intellectual dishonesty anyone? How about a side of closed minded laziness?

Conscientiousness is being careful and thorough in your responsibilities. I think you meant 'consciousness'. If you define 'soul' as a synonym for 'consciousness', you have thrown out the part where it can exist apart from the brain. Additionally, there is no evidence for a 'life force' and biocentrism is a pet notion of Dr. Lanza's, not a scientific theory in the sense of: 'a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.' 

I see someone is begging for another 'stick whoop'n'

Riddle me this sport... If I am invalidated by simply clicking "correct all" on my spell check rather than going word by word, what does it say about you, when the 'invalidated/dismissed' person corrects you by providing links/proof to your misuse of words, phases and whole precepts? :hmm:

Speaking of fallacies, if you think Lanza being an MD makes him credible, that would be an argument from inappropriate authority.

Not me sport, Phycology Today Thinks His alphabet soup makes him credible?

He has no particular credentials that would allow him to have an expert opinion on the existence of souls.

Tell me your not this stupid, Or is it your hope your peers are???
What would make anyone a credentialed expert on a subject that science has failed to classify? How can one be an expert on a soul if souls can't be measured?

He draws on science that he isn't qualified to analyze (quantum physics) to reach conclusions that his field isn't qualified to address (the existence of life force or souls).

So... Souls have been identified by quantum Physics now?? Or are you saying He is not allowed to take a term like soul and simple describe how it fits a much larger principle? Isn't that what All teachers do? Or are you saying His modified description of the word soul is wrong? if so how? How does it misrepresent any portion of Biocenterism?

Do you think all a soul is, is consciousness; without reference to surviving the body after death?

You didn't read the theory of Bio centrism did you? For the sake of this argument "science" in the form of the theory of bio centrism says the consciousness can survive death.

If not, it's rather intellectually dishonest of you to bring in Lanza's speculations as if they supported your belief in an immaterial soul that preserves your consciousness after death.

Again no, as I do not have to have to know or in this case claim to know with absolute certainty the nature of the soul. The discussion centers around disproving that all of 'science' refutes the notion of a soul. I've simply intorduced (via Lanza and this article) that all of 'science' does not discredit the idea of a soul.

At no point did I say nor do I have to 'pledge myself' to what is said here. I am simply showing contrasting views in "all mighty science."

And what's intellectually lazy is grabbing any article that you think is on your side instead of troubling yourself to look for one that is peer reviewed, or even one that actually presents the evidence you're trying to say exists. On the other hand, you may have looked for one diligently, failed to find it, and presented this extremely weak substitute for actual evidence; in which case you're not lazy, just dishonest.

What is lazy (period) is assuming i took the first thing that came up and formulating all the crap you have without asking question 1.

This is not my first thread that uses this article. I've used it at least in another maybe two other threads the same way. Maybe you ought to ask a few question gather some information before you 'invade poland' next time. (rather than assume the pollock jokes are all true.)