What does the (hypothetical) soul take with it?

[emjay]

My first post and the title of the thread are now duly edited for people who see what they expect to see

[Pyrrho]

[emjay]

I'd recommend the book "What The Buddha Taught" by Walpola Sri Rahula. In it it talks about what the Buddha, as a person, taught and there is nothing metaphysical about it. He comes across as an expert in psychology and the ideas make a lot of sense. If I were to follow any 'religion' that would be it but at that point in time it was not a religion, just the teachings of a wise man who never claimed to be anything other than that - he did not believe in any god nor claim to speak for any god.

I'm familiar with the stripped down meditative and contemplation-focused version of Buddhism (Four Noble Truths, Eight-Fold Path and all that), but I wouldn't call that anything 'scientific', nor especially astounding for its time.  Additionally, if there's any hint of samsara or karma or anything like that, then any veneer of 'scientific' really goes out the window.

Yes, that was the part I was referring to - the Four Noble Truths etc. Admittedly there is talk of some form of reincarnation even at that stage but it is very different from what later versions of Buddhism teach and has none of the superstitious connotations, nor arbitrary levels of reincarnation in a hierarchy. It is put forward as a logical argument and extension of earlier ideas but still doesn't convince. But the other, earthly stuff is still cool.

[FatAndFaithless]

Right, but none of that is what I'd call 'scientific'. Interesting thought experiments with some good ideas and some bad ideas with vaguely supernatural stuff sprinkled in? Sure. Just because it deals in extremely vague and ill-defined ideas doesn't make it any more striking or resonant to me.

[emjay]

Right, but none of that is what I'd call 'scientific'.  Interesting thought experiments with some good ideas and some bad ideas with vaguely supernatural stuff sprinkled in?  Sure.  Just because it deals in extremely vague and ill-defined ideas doesn't make it any more striking or resonant to me.

Okay maybe not scientific but he arrived at it by a process of logical enquiry. Personally I'd call that scientific but if not that then philosophical. But all only coming from what he observed in himself, so introspective and not based on anything supernatural.

[Minimalist]

When evidence can be produced for a soul then the question will be worthy of consideration. Not before.

[emjay]

When evidence can be produced for a soul then the question will be worthy of consideration.  Not before.

I wasn't trying to prove a soul. I don't believe in a soul. I was asking Theists to prove a soul.

[Lek]

I wasn't trying to prove a soul. I don't believe in a soul. I was asking Theists to prove a soul.

I believe in the existence of our soul, but I can't prove it to you. Anyway, as Jenny pointed out earlier, the bible has much to say about us being in our bodies during the afterlife. It also refers to a "new earth" which he had prepared for us. When we die the soul survives and the body dies. On the final day, our bodies will be resurrected and will be reunited with our souls. Obviously, we will be living in a physical place after that time. I believe that the soul that survives earthly death is the essence of who we are and will retain all our memories and so on, and that we will recognize the people that we have known on earth.

[dyresand]

A mind exists a soul doesn't the end.

[Lek]

A mind exists a soul doesn't the end.

Okay. You said it and that settles it!