> > Furthermore it's a bit foolish to discuss concepts such as the "soul" without bringing religion into it, and I rather take offense at your solicitation for opinions in the same breath that you dismiss those that upwards of what 80-90% of the world might give you. "Malarky" was the word you used. As someone so concerned with people who assume "everyone else is wrong," you're not very inconspicuous about holding a double standard.
>
> I'm a hypocrite. I've always known it. I treat this exactly the way I do everything else - I'm right and you're not. I'm hypocritical about hypocrites - and besides, religion just makes me so ANGRY (there you go) that I really can't stand thinking logically about it, negatively or positively.

I think the word "religion" has come to be seen as a word that causes trouble. If every instance of the word "religion" in this thread was substituted with "spiritual beliefs," would the thread still be causing problems?

According to Webster, religion is "1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power accepted as the creator and governor of the universe. b. A specific unified or emotional attitude this expression. 2. The spiritual or emotional attitude of one who recognizes the existence of a superhuman power or powers." In itself, I see nothing wrong with this word or its definition. However, mere mention of the word in today's society is grounds for an argument, or at least a very heated discussion.

Now, on to the definition of "soul," according to Webster: "1. The animating and vital priniciple in the human being, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity. 2. The spiritual nature of the human being, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state."

Both words refer to beliefs in powers and forces that we cannot truly see or understand. I'm really not sure how you can have a discussion about the soul without including personal beliefs on the issue. Since there is no concrete, scientific evidence for the soul, there are no concrete, solid answers. This results in an open-ended discussion that will never really be concluded. Such discussion works best when the parties involved approach it with an open mind and respect for those who share different opinions and views. While you desire that people respect the fact that you don't like religion, Markus, it would be ideal if you also respected the fact that others DO have strong religous beliefs. It's the give-and-take idea: Give some, and you'll find that you can also take some.

> This kind of thing is never going to get resolved. Everyone, I find, has such inherent bias that never can be levelled.

You're right that it will never be resolved among mankind, as I stated above. However, I don't think "bias" always plays a role. Instead, I think honest, personal beliefs are the driving force behind such a discussion. While you do not believe in any religion, others do. You have personal beliefs, and so does everyone around you. In fact, not believing in any religion at all is almost a religion in itself.

> There's no way to be fair. If everyone basks in their own beliefs and *not* tries to rationalize it, that's the only way everyone can be happy.

No, this isn't always true. Some people who have very strong beliefs also relish a good discussion on things such as the soul.

Ell"Check emotions at the door, where possible"myruh