As ironically racist as that statement was, I'm inclined to agree. My sister gave me the most batshit hypocritical news.

A White man (not woman) who committed some murder of his own in 1988 was scheduled to be put to his death on the same day as Troy Davis.

He plead guilty, the had overwhelming evidence against him and yet, his death sentence was done away with and he was instead given life without parole.

I'm not a fan of the death sentence. I'm not a racist. I DO however believe in fair play.

Troy Davis' proof of guilt was shaky at best and he was executed whereas this White guy who obviously did it, admitted it and had no qualms with it is still alive and kicking despite it all.

I can smell the outrage to come the minute Georgia residents catch wind of this.

Oh yeah. It was in the same state as Troy. Georgia. Sorry, I forgot to mention that before. It's what made the whole thing relevant.

I never said anything about you having to forgive him. Any forgiveness you grant is a matter of therapy you would need to feel better. He's not owed. You need to learn to grow past this problem, you need help for victims. Which is what you are. Killing this man won't make the pain go away.

What I think is important to recognize is that the value of mercy (or at the very least the lack of grotesque punishments) for the villains of the world is not for their sake but for ours.

What is the value of justice if we lose our souls in search of it?

yall have some interesting points, opinions, and stories. I just wanted to add another detail I heard (even though I know I said I wasn't here to debate Troy's guilt/innocence).

My boss (who is also a close personal friend of mine) told me that his aunt knew Troy. She said that he was a guy that everyone in the neighborhood was scared of, and that he was bragging about killing Officer Mcphail after the murder. She also thought he was trying to take the credit from someone else.

Just an interesting detail. Hearsay, I know, but still.

NO, it is not.



Lex Talionis, the law of retaliation is the 300 or so law of Hammurapi. It is far from the first law. Also it protected from UNEQUAL retaliation, murder for murder, yes, but not murder for rape in modern context.

For a short time I worked in a super-max prison in Nebraska. Now I don't know much about this in particular case. I know that evidence is shaky though. I see this subject as too seperate issues:

1. The death penalty in general.
2. The death penalty for Troy Davis.


My stance on the death penalty in general:
While I was working in this prison I worked death row for about a week. I stood, seperated only by the glass of my control center, witht he likes of Michael Ryan, John Lotter, and another criminal whose name escapes me.

Michael Ryan was the leader of a cult outside the little town of Rulo Nebraska. He believes to this day that he is the next profit and is writing his own Biblical testament behind bars.
His crimes include many murders but the one that stays in my mind is that he forced a father to sodomize and skin his young (2-4yrs old I think) son alive.
Read the Novel EVIL HARVEST if you really need to hear more.

John Lotter fell in love with a transgendered woman. Found out that she was transgendered and proceded to blow her away with a shotgun. He also blew away 2 other people that night in front of their children.
(The Brandon Teena Story)

The third criminal, I do not remember his name, but I will never forget his crime. He kidnapped his ex-girfriends infant son, cut the little boy up and fed him to the dog.

When people this evil get as close to you as they got to me, you can feel the chill in the air. I know thats a cliche' but the temperature around them is always colder than everywhere else. When they look at you and talk to you, you can tell that there is a part of them missing, an emptiness. I believe they are missing a human soul, and are infact not human. Others I worked with describe a similar feeling.

Now, for men (and women) like that, I have no problem with the death sentence, because it isn't about sending a message or being some kind of role model. Its about the fact that these individuals are not like you and me, they are not human beings, they are evil and I have no problem killing them on the basis that they do not deserve to live on the same planet as you and I.
Life in prison is worse than getting the death sentence. Its not even a close contest. That is if you are a human being and despite your wicked ways you still desire safety and love, and if you still feel sorrow prison life is the worst thing possible. However guys like Ryan and Lotter do not have human feelings, they are souless and you can't do anything with them except kill them.

The Death Penalty for Troy Davis:
Also from working in the system I do know that law enforcement and CO's will lie, pressure, and interrogate people to a point where they will say or do anything. I watched it happen all the time and that is why I got out.
They can hold you for 24hours and during that 24 hours they will tell you when you can drink, eat, and sleep. They will deprive you of those things untill you say what they want to hear, but further more when the body is deprived of those things your mind does not work properly. If you do not eat drink or sleep for 24 hours and you are told the same story for 24hours you will begin to create a false memory. That is to say you will begin to remember things that you did not really do, say, or see.
Given the details that I have, the shakiness of the evidence and how unreliable eye-witnesses are. (Do we all remember the belt-line snipers and their infamous white van that they didn't actually drive?) Troy Davis did not deserve to die.

Does the death penalty deter murder?

Cost benefit analysis of Capital Punishment {PDF}

ACLU white paper on the death penalty *NOTE: Look up what a white paper is before passing judgement.

Texas decision to keep death penalty by majority despite citation that life in prison is cheaper.

Entire list of articles showing and discussing that sociopathy is linked to a problem with the Amygdala. The amygdala is shown to be where emotions are stored and where empathy comes from.

Lastly: The problems with proclaiming anything about a soul.

....If killing someone is more expensive than keeping them alive for decades... We're doing it wrong.

Also, science not being able to prove the existence of the soul would be important, but science is meaningless in matters of the soul.

Prove what a soul is.

Possibly you missed the part where the death penalty is negligible in deterring murder. It doesn't work.

Who determines who lives and who dies? What wretched creature can you walk up to and honestly tell them that they no longer can live? That all hope is lost on them for all eternity and that you are willing to kill them without hesitation? Who decides who lives and dies? Are you willing to take that burden? Can you kill without remorse? Are you willing to hand that off to someone else? Who do you trust living on Earth to decide to expeditiously execute people? What if you kill an innocent? How do you tell them you are sorry? How do you recompense the dead? What shallow apologies will work on the families of an innocent corpse? How do you prevent them from exacting revenge? What are the rules and guidelines for telling people that they no longer deserve the gift of life? Who are you to judge? What harm is there in letting them live locked up forever if need be? Is your bloodlust so great that it must be sated even if you are wrong?

It's easy to say "Kill them all, God knows his own." It's another thing to say "Save them all because we don't know." It's easy to pass judgement when you start thinking of people as things. That's why we create labels. "They're degenerates. Murderers. Terrorists. Psychos." To dehumanize a person gives us a means to quit treating people like people.

I would rather save a hundred for one innocent man than to kill one hundred. What if it was you that was innocent? Would your "doing it right" be the way you wanted to be treated? Would you die with honor? Would you happily sit on the electric chair and proclaim "I may be murdered today even though I am innocent. I sacrifice myself so that my skin boils and my eyes pop out of my head for security. I give up wholly all my freedoms and rights as a human being so that I can live in a world where the average amount of crime hasn't actually changed but it seems safer which is more important than it actually being safer."

I wonder.

(quote) ... I messed up the quote.

I don't need to, it's all right there in the manual. Science is, in a sense, tangible; created by man to help us understand things that we normally wouldn't, while allowing us to fall back on it when something far to complex for us to comprehend can't be explained by it, thus allowing us to say it does not exist because we cannot explain it. Science is incapable of defining what a soul is because we created science, and it is thus limited by what WE are able to comprehend. In this case, a soul, which, apart from the spiritual sense, can have many definitions that are supported by science, regardless of the afterlife.

Some people believe the complex network of chemicals firing off within our bodies are the soul... Like the most important piece in a machine. Without these signals, we are without life... Without a soul, we are without life. In this sense, the soul is essentially just a simple, if fanciful way of describing what it is to be a living thing.

Someone else might limit a soul to being strictly emotional... The thing that determines what signals are the most prominent in you to create your personality, which includes murderers and rapists... However, others would limit this definition further by saying the emotional soul is what binds us to other people... It is how we connect with them, and someone who kills or tortures without remorse is lacking that love of life that is key to our soul, so they are in effect soulless.... Which is arguably untrue.

Personally, my belief is that our mind is our soul... The reason I would even refer to it as a soul is for the sake of individuality. No one's mind is the same, they are constantly shaped by every small experience in our lives that they become an entity separate from everyone else. Like a fingerprint, no two minds are shaped the same way. At the end of our lives, we are no longer a member of our species, we have transcended that existence and become nothing but our mind... Not in the sense that the mind still lives after death... More like our mind affects others the same way theirs changes ours, and that print we leave on other minds is our soul. It is the only representation of us after death, and its mark is the most simple and clean image of a living person. That effect allows us to be 'souls' after death, like how energy travels from person to person, our 'soul' will merit some kind of response from a person when they think of us, and that is life after death... To me, at least... As nutty as that sounds.

I talk too damn much.

It's nice that you're finding levity in a topic that is serious concern -personally to some- to a lot of people. Despite how other people are treating this topic it's nice to see that you are flippant with the nature of life and death.

If I am asking, it is clear that from my perspective you've never weighed the questions.

Not really. It'd be one thing if we were arguing the nature of gods or the best flavor of bubblegum. Or a hundred other things that don't end up with more dead people. But we are not.


Ah, there's the crux of it right there. So many times things were without doubt only to be shown wrong decades later with new evidence. What is your absolute proof? What is undeniable throughout the ages? I dare say that erring on the side of caution and not killing would be better than killing with inexact certainty.

That makes no sense. Laws are in place to fairly punish those who commit crimes in the attempt to prevent them and others to commit crimes likewise. To say that the death penalty merely exists as a means of vengeance is not only wrong; but a slap in the face of the entire basis of a justice system.

Put them in prison for life with the hopes that some future technology can either help them provide restitution to society or until some new evidence exhonerates them. I would expect no less.

I'd free them. I agree with the judge. They're humans first.

We can treat all humans like they have value. Our humanity for others must supersede even what militaristic state is in place. For no other reason than for knowing that empathy for fellow people is tantamount.

Yes we can. I'll even give you the answers. Never, always. Respectively.

Actually, logic dictates that the betterment of the species is based on retaining as much of the genetic pool as possible. Logic states that until there is sufficient evidence with past evidence used as a guide all judgements are to be reserved. Logic suggests that since people were wrongly accused in the past, the best way to preserve the species is to incarcerate until rehabilitation -which has been shown to work in the past- and/or new evidence. Logically, killing someone no matter the level of justification results in more bloodlust by the populace. Logic shows that a functioning society is one that feels it can redeem its bad qualities. Logic errs on the side that without absolute certainty, there is no use for a death penalty. Which neither saves the state money nor saves mental anguish nor reduces the crime rate. Logically speaking.




Life doesn't come with a manual.

In what sense?

Incorrect. Science is a method of understanding the data that everything in the universe presents. It is not a fallback. And assuming that something doesn't exist is not a fallback either. A positive claim must have evidence. That is not an extraordinary request. I say something, I back my shit up. The data says something, science tests and tests again until we have an idea of what the data means. You don't fall back to a position with science. There are only two states "This is the best idea we have of how things work with the data given by nature." And "We don't know."

It is not science's job to provide data for a word that is not clearly defined. A person makes a claim that a soul exists, or a chupacabra, or gravity or a hundred other things. Back it up. Show your proof.

Incorrect. Sweeping statement assumes all people comprehend all things at the same level.

Oh, this will be interesting.

If the chemicals quit firing then the soul ceases to exist. There's a very long discussion on this topic that amounts to: If your soul is indistinguishable from the chemicals then why not just call it chemicals? What does the term "soul" add?


As I shown above this is due to the amygdala. Again, this is chemical. It is the same as the previous paragraph with different wording. What does the word "soul" add to anything here?

Again, this is empathy. Empathy -> Amygdala. Amygdala -> chemicals. This is the same topic stated a third time. The only variation is that you added interaction with people. Negligible. Question persists.

Fourth time, exact same thing.

Prove transcendence.

Being remembered is still short lived with the few exceptions. Eventually memories fade. Even providing this had any weight, what use does that provide? What is its function?

The only energy I've ever seen travel from person to person is either kinetic or static. The rest of that makes no sense.

Not nutty. Not new. Unfortunately, it lacks any kind of proof. Let alone a definition. I still don't know what a soul is. And as you've shown, people can't even agree on that subject amongst those who believe it.



Never.

Like I said above, you don't have to call it a soul, but when you are face to face with those people you can tell that they are missing some kind of intangible human quality. I call it a soul, but you could call it whatever you want.

Those guys are real life monsters and when your in close proximity to them you can feel it.

Id have no problem flipping the switch on Ryan or Lotter.

Get over it. Keep your veiled insults to yourself.




Then you make assumptions without thinking... Kind of similar to how you give a completely black and white answer to something far more complicated than that.

Not really. It'd be one thing if we were arguing the nature of gods or the best flavor of bubblegum. Or a hundred other things that don't end up with more dead people. But we are not.


I don't need to answer this. I'd just be regurgitating what I've already said to someone who doesn't care for it.

Ah, there's the crux of it right there. So many times things were without doubt only to be shown wrong decades later with new evidence. What is your absolute proof? What is undeniable throughout the ages? I dare say that erring on the side of caution and not killing would be better than killing with inexact certainty.

I can't argue with that, it's true that it is better to act with caution... But it is also true that inexact certainty is NOT certainty, and this statement does not apply to what I said. I didn't mention any particular degree of certainty other than absolute. If they can be proven innocent later, then it isn't absolute.... In that case everyone on hand just needs a little bit more foresight.



Agree to disagree. The justice system is just that... Justice. I don't consider punishment to be vengeance... It was proven a long time ago that 'justice' doesn't prevent crime... Yet it's still here. We could argue this all we wanted, it would go nowhere.





I agree with this, for the most part. I only defend the death penalty when there is no doubt(like... Literally caught red handed for a crime more severe than a single muder)... I said earlier in the thread I'd rather see the man who killed my sister stay in prison for life than die. Do note, that there was absolute certainty of his crime, but I know he wasn't a soulless monster. He killed himself.



That's not the point. It's drawing a comparison, not asking you if you would have freed them. Everyone agrees with the judge, she should have let those people go. The point was that she was put in control of someone's life or freedom against what she was 'supposed' to do... And she couldn't make that decision.



Then the issue becomes 'how can someone kill/torture/worse all these people and not have the empathy to stop?'... That's a double standard in favor of the murderer.




It doesn't work that way, no matter how much you refuse to see it.




No, that's going a bit beyond. Simple logic is 'apples are apples'... When you start to think about, it becomes this endless list of why we should or shouldn't do things that cloud logic more than anything else. A completely logical thought process will lead to a dead end, because 'logically', anything can be justified.... Logic is easily twisted to fit any situation as there is no true definition for it. You ask for everyone involved to be perfect, but they are just human, and we are largely incapable of seeing anything outside our own bias.




In the sense that it is near to us, that we can actively participate in it. It drastically affects our lives, and its very existence is our doing. I don't mean it in the literal sense that you can touch it. Figuratively, science as a concept can be 'touched', while a soul cannot.




Two different ways to say the same thing.




*sighs*...This is insufferable. Your hyper literal refusal to think that anything can exist beyond your own senses is doing nothing but arguing with what I say. You CAN'T prove it, that was the point of what I said... I say science is limited by what people can comprehend and thus can't prove the existence of a soul.... You say "prove it.".




WHAT? What does this have to do with anything? Yeah,
we can all comprehend things on the same level', never said we couldn't. Similarly, we all fail to comprehend things on the same level... In this case, no one can define what a soul is because we can't fully comprehend it... We can only offer our best estimation of what it is.




Are you going to stop being a twat? I mean, I don't recall ever passive aggressively insulting you... In fact, I believe I just stated what I thought without degrading you in any way.




You can go have that argument with someone else. I'm just providing examples of other people's beliefs, I could care less if they're silly or not.




Okay, I really just cannot do it. You're ridiculous. Yeah, they all come from the same place! I know that! These are three examples of what is ultimately the same thing, but with different labels and restrictions people put on it from their perspective. It's not about the damn amygdala. I could say this is the third time you've completely missed the point.




Wrong. Fourth time, you completely missing the point.




This is irritating. I do not mean some silly concept of 'transcendence'... I really do just mean to use the word. There's nothing to prove, it's a word, and I mean simply mean we've gone beyond our physical body.




It doesn't need a function. This the the most telling statement of my beliefs... I do not believe in an afterlife or a soul in a spiritual sense. For me, your soul is just the effect you have on other people, however small or brief. I don't look at a soul as a functional thing, just a fanciful, if comforting idea.




I said 'like' energy, never said it was energy. Our 'print' as I phrased it, travels from us to the people we connect with, leaving our memory as a mark on their mind. Makes perfect sense if you're willing to understand it... You, however, are not.





... Wasn't aware I was trying to be a pioneer here.... It doesn't need proof or definition, that's the point! it's just an idea, and it's different for different people.... I mean... I can't think of anything to say but "duh!" ... I'm not looking at the soul as 'serious business', I'm looking at it as a label. Some people need to believe in its existence, and I simply look at it as something real: memories, nothing more.




I agree with the last statement.... But I'm not going to respond to this again. I pretty much feel like I've just repeated myself, and if you respond, you'll do the same thing. There's no convincing to be done, so it's meaningless.
Yes! Exactly! You call it whatever you want... You explain it away however you want, that would be the summary of my rambling, haha.

For that statement and sentiment, I am sorry. I mean it and meant it when I said "Never."


The above example is a case of having empathy. Those people in the example appear to have none. That's what gives them the apparent inhuman quality. A lack of empathy.

The word 'soul' carries a lot of baggage whether it is intended or not. It is a defining quality that people who believe in that word use as a means to separate people from non-people. Whether you wish them to or not. It is why I gave data to show empathy is merely chemical. That despite their functional drawback, they still are people. Not monsters. Not objects.

I can't abide killing people. Even broken people. There is no absolute proof to any number of heinous crimes. Murder itself is merely classified as "beyond reasonable doubt". Absolute certainty is beyond all doubt. That can't be attained.

Im telling you man, when you talk to one of those guys you KNOW something is horribly wrong. Personally I believe they are demons in human form. I believe that they have no souls and are put on the earth as tools of the devil.

Extreme I know, but I am not a mega-religious person or anything like that. I'm just a guy who has been face to face with pure evil, and when your looking it in the face you have no doubts.

My problem with the death penalty is that you get the sentence automatically after killing X amount of people under X conditions.

So when Angry Mitch kills X amount of people under X conditions, what incentive is there for Angry Mitch to stop? Why shouldn't he just grab all the ammunition he can and just "go down swinging?"

Most murders aren't premeditated anyway, so capital punishment doesn't even work to prevent the FIRST of the murders. People capable of murder usually aren't fond of doing it. I can't back that up with data, but it seems true at face value.

And of course, you need absolute certainty of the committed crime before you can justify a death sentence. I'm not convinced that level of certainty is possible.

And that's only after you find a theory of justice that even permits the death penalty.

Really, absolute certainty is only possible when they are caught in the act.

Pot. Kettle. Black.



People lie. Police and politicians can be corrupted. Witnesses are frequently unreliable. Data can be modified or corrupted. The list goes on and it is not new.

This may seem off topic, but I just wanted to say that I agree with your views on "demons in human form". I'm not a very religious person either, but for some of the shit people do out there, I really can't think of any reason whatsoever why those acts are committed. Like those stories you hear about parents putting their infant children in the oven, or drowning their kids in the bathtub; truly, I believe that is the work of a demon. I'm blessed to say that I have not been unfortunate enough to meet such a person, and I pray that I never will. Like you, I know others might find it silly or extreme to say the least; oh well, they can think what they will, but I couldn't just leave you hanging after reading your comment.

Racist?

Do you have any articles or information about this other case? I'm interested to read about it.

I think there is a fundamental problem arguing this from the perspective of the sociopath (for the moment let's ignore that not everybody on death row is one).

Regardless of what the cause for the condition is, be it the lack of a soul, a broken brain, some past event, etc., they are effectively useless. I mean that in a purely logical way. Assuming there is no "cure" or rehabilitation (which as far as I'm aware there isn't), then these individuals are incapable of safely interacting with society at large and the only means by which to deal with them is to isolate them for the rest of their lives.

Therefore, it follows that all the facts that could be used to justify keeping them alive can also in turn be used to support executing them, even maybe applying the less charged term "euthanize." We get rid of "broken" things all the time. If these individuals are "broken" humans then why not do the same?

The fact that they're human should, by extension, not matter. At that point, the "human" part is merely biological as all social and behavioral aspects of what we commonly understand as "being human" are lacking. So why should their genetic status matter?

The reason it matters isn't because they're human but because we are. That's why we have a concept of humane treatment of animals. They don't have to be human. They don't even have to care or even be aware of what's going on. We treat them humanely for our sake, not theirs. Because if we don't? Then we lose a part of ourselves in the process. We lose what makes us human beyond mere biology, the thing that those people don't have.

What we do matters to us. Call it a soul, a properly functioning brain, a moral code, or whatnot, we internalize our actions. What we do matters not because those people have value but because we, as morally self-aware individuals, have standards and want the world to reflect that. Presumably on the grounds that if we are moral there will be some long-term benefit. A better, safer, more just society? Better, more moral future generations? Heaven? Or simply just for the fact that we want to do the right thing. Take your pick.

So while I agree with Shoe as far as the conclusion, I disagree with the reasoning. I think some people genuinely are evil (through their own choices, an unfortunate side effect of free will) or just plain too dangerous to coexist with other people. And I think many of these people probably do deserve to die. But there are also many people who died and deserved to live. Yet none of us can give those people what they deserve.

We luckily don't live in Gotham City with their revolving door justice system. Once these guys are put away they're put away for good. So I think it's important that we do what may often be the harder choice and hold ourselves back from killing people once the threat is neutralized through other means. Again, not because they deserve to live but because we deserve to be better than that.

Shoe, the word "soul" is a synonym for the word "mind" in most Christian philosophies. We all agree regarding the existence of minds (I hope); the question is whether the nature of the mind is supernatural.


How do you know that?



Because if the mind is the product of chemical processes, then the chemicals themselves cannot share identity with the mind. The cause and effect cannot be the same thing. If I create a robot, that means I am not that robot.


How could anyone know that? People can't say "immaterial entities cannot exist" and then say "but if immaterial entities do exist, there is no possible way for them to have casual relations with physical entities." Whenever people start making absolute claims about things they don't believe exist, everyone else ought to get suspicious.

Iron Chariot is building a straw man.

If the criminal did something wrong, the jury shouldn't do something equally as wrong e.g. punish by a death penalty. Someone has to be wiser. Besides, bad prison conditions and long sentences don't help the society much and that's what matters in the long run.
Sometimes a seemingly lost criminal becomes a great husband, father and a worker - that's something to aim for (for ethical and beneficial reasons). I hate to quote for truth so I'll just quit fucking talking now.

Tony The Tiger:
I may have slipped into using emotion when arguing. Bad form on my part, I'm sorry. I guess it's just something I care very much about. While my feelings may not apply to all, I still feel that killing someone -when there's a chance, science, uncertainty, and plenty of other reasons not to- is a bad thing.

Temp:
"...most Christian philosophies..." That's the crux right there.

"How do you know that?" I'm not saying a soul exists. I personally don't believe in one. My statement was regarded as a supposition that the scenario presented were true. If it's a matter of chemicals firing that creates the soul then the cessation of chemicals firing equates the cessation of the soul. As far as I can see or measure. If you can provide evidence to show it continues afterwards, I'd be happy to look at the data. This is a matter of causality. I apologize for assuming everyone was thinking the same as I do. I hope that provides clarity.

...I am not a robot. I hope you indulge me for cutting for brevity. You mistake the point I raised here and confuse what I meant. Which is fine, I was not being clear. That's my fault. I love robots and I will be happy to use yours as an example.

I create a robot. It is very sophisticated. I learn how to program it and make it pass a Turing test. As far as can be seen to the independent observer, this robot acts like a human. I go so far as to write subroutines that make it believe that it is both independent and alive. I then change out whatever power source with that of one that can digest plant and animal matter similar to that of humans. I write open ended programs for it to learn and develop and to change itself based on its environment. (A nose to smell, a tongue to taste).

Think of the child in AI that did not know it was not human -if a reader needs an analogous example-. How do you tell advanced chemical processes or programming from that of a "mind"? It is a question that plagues philosophy, science, and religion so I don't claim to have the answer.

But what I can recognize and know is that if I turn this machine off, its thoughts cease. Its function as a mind stops. The programming or chemicals are still there. Still in that state. But the function of "I am." is no more. It cannot create art. It cannot make decisions. It cannot do the multitude of things that distinguish it from a sack of chemicals or a guidebook to programming.

If I go and I change by accident or purpose, the chemicals or programming within the creation I do change its mind. If I hit it over the head and it is still able to function, it may function differently. It is not a different thing other than a mind. It may become crazy. It may become autistic. But it is still functioning.

And that is the problem of trying to tie something eternal to this chemical process. If you try to suggest a soul is eternal besides the question of "What proof?" you have the question of "How?" Since if a soul is the extension of the mind, and the mind can be changed quite easily and tragically, what happens when the chemicals that it is tied to are stopped? If its function is tied directly to the processes then when the chemicals break down does it break down? Is it then not eternal? If it is just a slip word for "mind" then it adds nothing we can see but suggests eternal due to the amount of baggage it carries. We already have a word for those chemicals processes that occur within our brains that we call a mind. We call it "mind".

Whenever people start making absolute claims about things they don't believe exist, everyone else ought to get suspicious. Also known as: Shoe I think you've gone off the rails and are starting to sound retarded. Fair enough. lol I know that may not be what you mean, but it'd be certainly well within your right to say so.

This one is the easiest to address. Immaterial, as was accepted as far as I could see nobody arguing about anyway, means not consisting of matter or energy. Material things -meaning consisting of matter or energy- can be measured. Material things interact with the environment physically. They can be weighed, measured, so on. I then extend logically and inversely -until data is provided to the contrary- that something that is affected physically was affected by a material thing. And if a thing such as a soul is affecting material things it must have a material property. And if it has material properties it can be measured. Thus it is material.
If an immaterial object interacts with the environment, I'd like to see some data on that.

Iron Chariot is building a straw man
I'm not going to guess what Iron Chariot means to you, though I can guess whom is meant by context. I will however give others some background on the significance of iron chariots.

Judges - 1:19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Judges - 4:3 And the children of Israel cried unto the Lord: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.

Judges - 4:13 And Sisera gathered together all his chariots, even nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that were with him, from Harosheth of the Gentiles unto the river of Kishon.

Iron Chariots is a term used by atheists to derisively clarify that they are impervious to God's magic. Just like in the bible. (That's god with a capital G) The use of it by someone else puts their statement into question and raises up whole other theological rhetoric that really isn't worth fighting about.

I hope I clarified what I left murky as a swamp before.