Clarity

Originally posted by @fmf
[b]The most common scientific explanation is that there is no 'you' inside of you. We are simply biological machines that act and react to stimuli, and have fooled 'ourselves' (our conscious minds) into thinking there's a little man sitting at the controls in our brain. To my way of thinking this is like saying the lights are on but no one is home. And when we ...[text shortened]... . Not more pub-bore propaganda about what you claim is "the most common scientific explanation".

Knock knock, hello? Is anyone home?

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
In short the spiritual component of humans cannot be detected because it is spiritual.
There is nothing for science to measure as science is understood atm.

I think it can be detected. And I think we can already go some way towards measuring it.

I think as humans ~ whether we be theists or atheists ~ we are endowed with a capacity for projecting ourselves in abstract ways and also we are affected and influenced and shaped by the abstract projections of other people.

Added to this, we clearly have individual spirits ~ perhaps the same thing that most religionists refer to as a "soul" - although they would almost certainly define it [and explain it!] differently from non-religionists and atheists.

These individual spirits comprise personality, uniqueness, relationships, and other abstract aspects all bound together in the singular personal narrative that each of us accumulates as we live our lives.

This is the nature of the human spirit and is therefore ~ to my way of thinking ~ the domain of the “spirit” and "spirituality" [i.e. concerned with or affecting or being affected by the human “spirit” or "soul"]. I think it is clear that both theists and atheists exist and live out their lives in this domain.

Most theists live their lives in this domain by seeing what we are - and ,by articulating their hopes - through various religionist prisms and they find themselves attracted to 'answers' that are rooted in supernatural things.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Knock knock, hello? Is anyone home?

The request for links that substantiate your characterization of "the most common scientific explanation" is still there waiting.

Originally posted by @fmf
The request for links that substantiate your characterization of "the most common scientific explanation" is still there waiting.

https://www.walmart.com/c/kp/sausage-links
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/chainlink/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_lynx
https://www.livescience.com/55999-is-your-self-just-an-illusion.html

Thread 176919

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
https://www.walmart.com/c/kp/sausage-links
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/chainlink/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_lynx
https://www.livescience.com/55999-is-your-self-just-an-illusion.html

Thread 176919

Which one has the characterization you used?

Originally posted by @fmf
Which one has the characterization you used?

The first one

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Knock knock, hello? Is anyone home?

The most common scientific explanation is that there is no 'you' inside of you. We are simply biological machines that act and react to stimuli, and have fooled 'ourselves' (our conscious minds) into thinking there's a little man sitting at the controls in our brain. To my way of thinking this is like saying the lights are on but no one is home. And when we are looking around and viewing life, it's like our brains are a movie theater, and the movie is showing on the screen... but all of the seats are empty. So if no one is in the theater, who is watching the movie? It can't be 'me' because according to science there is no me.

Fabricating a parody of a position or opinion so that you dismiss it is a straw man.

Originally posted by @fmf
[b]The most common scientific explanation is that there is no 'you' inside of you. We are simply biological machines that act and react to stimuli, and have fooled 'ourselves' (our conscious minds) into thinking there's a little man sitting at the controls in our brain. To my way of thinking this is like saying the lights are on but no one is home. And when we ...[text shortened]... me.

Fabricating a parody of a position or opinion so that you dismiss it is a straw man.[/b]

I don't believe you

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
The most common scientific explanation is that there is no 'you' inside of you...blah blah blah blah...

You've been rumbled yet again.

Originally posted by @fmf
You've been rumbled yet again.

Do you have anything constructive to contribute to the discussion?

Originally posted by @fmf
[b]The most common scientific explanation is that there is no 'you' inside of you. We are simply biological machines that act and react to stimuli, and have fooled 'ourselves' (our conscious minds) into thinking there's a little man sitting at the controls in our brain. To my way of thinking this is like saying the lights are on but no one is home. And when we ...[text shortened]... me.

Fabricating a parody of a position or opinion so that you dismiss it is a straw man.[/b]

I think you may have mistaken me for someone who doesn't think you're full of crap.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Do you have anything constructive to contribute to the discussion?

Yes, of course. Why do you act so scared of discussion? If you can back your claim about what "the most common scientific explanation" is for our each and every identity then maybe you can turn what you said on the previous page into something constructive. But you have been acting weirdly since you were called out for your fabrication. If you don't find my contribution constructive, and you choose to hide yourself behind simply saying that, well then that's OK ~ but it does make you seem evasive.

Originally posted by @fmf
Yes, of course. Why do you act so scared of discussion? If you can back your claim about what "the most common scientific explanation" is for our each and every identity then maybe you can turn what you said on the previous page into something constructive. But you have been acting weirdly since you were called out for your fabrication. If you don't find my con ...[text shortened]... ide yourself behind simply saying that, well then that's OK ~ but it does make you seem evasive.

buzz off

Originally posted by @fmf
[b]The most common scientific explanation is that there is no 'you' inside of you. We are simply biological machines that act and react to stimuli, and have fooled 'ourselves' (our conscious minds) into thinking there's a little man sitting at the controls in our brain. To my way of thinking this is like saying the lights are on but no one is home. And when we ...[text shortened]... me.

Fabricating a parody of a position or opinion so that you dismiss it is a straw man.[/b]

The 'you' inside of you is your soul.
Where have you seen scientists talking about the human soul as though it was just another appendage? Show us links explaining the human soul from a natural science perspective, if you think you can find any.

I've had enough of your BS, so either put up or shut up.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Are you sure it was Stilton and not Gorgonzola? Wouldn't that change the calculus about
alien DNA, because you know...refrigerator and cheese...you know how them aliens are!

We usually buy a wedge of Stilton at Christmas, not because either of us like blue cheese, but because, well you know, it's tradition.

A tiny nibble once a year is enough for anybody, so the rest remains contentedly in the fridge until around June, when the first indication of emerging sentience is identified. By then the alien DNA has made the cheese the top predator on the middle shelf and plans are well afoot for world domination. (The 'world' being the fridge in its entirety).

As you know, the Bible is an account of this occurring, (though you won't find a direct reference).