When do you get a soul??

[Moebius]

I believe a more accurate analogy would be "table > wood" "human > water/muscle/bone, etc." as wood is what a table is made of. Or maybe "table > plant" "human > animal". Phylogenetics deals with classifying organisms into which respective kingdoms of life.

'Accuracy' is the one thing were debating here. ...
we could just as easily classify life as Human/Non Human. Animals would fall into the later.

Humans perceive their death, they transcends the evolutionary struggle that has taken place over a millions of years. We alone, are not passive subject or slave to our DNA. We shape our world and universe like none other.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Most things that are done in the name of religion and not truly because of religion, people once upon a time couldn't really read and they relied on the teachers of religion to give them the truth of the religion, which even to this day does not happen in most churches I have been to and I'm assuming it is the same in some synagogues and mosques etc... preachers twist words to suit their own ideals and influence people that are gullible... Corrupt people have risen to power the world over all through history regardless of religion or not, and people have gone to war all over the world for no religious reasons what so ever...

Well what's their excuse today? Literacy rates are much higher than in most of human history.

To be honest with you, why should it matter to me how or why it happened the way it did? Do you think I should be sympathetic to that argument and say "well they just got conned... it could happen to anyone.."? Do you believe that justifies all the atrocities because of religion? I don't believe you do, so I might be misunderstanding your point..

I think it's every single individuals responsibility to meet a certain set of standards to live among society for that society to succeed, and allowing yourself to be conned into such things is a failure on the individuals part.

 

[Moebius]

Nice debating, im shattered. peace. and dont forget to say your prayers at night. lol

 

[Padawanbater2]

'Accuracy' is the one thing were debating here. ...
we could just as easily classify life as Human/Non Human. Animals would fall into the later.

Humans perceive their death, they transcends the evolutionary struggle that has taken place over a millions of years. We alone, are not passive subject or slave to our DNA. We shape our world and universe like none other.

I disagree, phylogenetics is an actual science that deals with such classifications, but we can move past that for now, but the one thing you must accept is that's simply what we are defined as in biology, you wouldn't introduce us as a plant or a fungus, right?

How can you be certain some animal species don't perceive death?

Our spot on the food chain is the result of billions of years of successful mutations leading to the most advantageous anatomical and physiological structures (comparatively speaking), namely intelligence, and shit loads of luck.

Also a result of our circumstances. 65 million years ago, I'm sure the dinosaurs were saying the same thing.

 

[Kaendar]

To Padawan: Im not saying there has to be visual confirmation. Like I said before, we have been able to prove what parts of the brain make "invisible" things happen in our mind and body. No part of the brain or its actions have been attributed to some uniquely human traits that support the notion that we have a soul.

 

[Shannon Alexander]

All I was saying and am saying is that people can hypothesize all they want about how the world may possibly have turned out without it, but you can't say one way or the other with any sort of accuracy that the world is better off because of religion or worse off because of it...

Edit...

I don't believe in whole sale slaughtering people for any reason, witch trials, racial prejudice, Killing people for their resources (unless you actually have no other choice)

Religion is my most hated excuse for war, it is a piss poor excuse to kill people...

Edit... Edit...

My invisible being is bigger and stronger than your invisible being, only he speaks the truth and he chose us to deliver his word to...

No our invisible being is bigger and stronger than yours, only he speaks the truth and he chose us to deliver his word to... you must die for your blasphemy...

If you look in the Bible most of the time when "God" is sending his people off to war it is to murder and plunder... more specifically to take what the other person has but doesn't want to give you... It has always been about much less than religion...

 

[Shannon Alexander]

To Padawan: Im not saying there has to be visual confirmation. Like I said before, we have been able to prove what parts of the brain make "invisible" things happen in our mind and body. No part of the brain or its actions have been attributed to some uniquely human traits that support the notion that we have a soul.

You know they found a gene that determines psychopathy... and impaired brain functions also... would Psychopaths be people you consider to have a dark or twisted soul..? cause it boils down to genetics...

 

[Padawanbater2]

To Padawan: Im not saying there has to be visual confirmation. Like I said before, we have been able to prove what parts of the brain make "invisible" things happen in our mind and body. No part of the brain or its actions have been attributed to some uniquely human traits that support the notion that we have a soul.

What about all the other points?

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

Yes, humans arent better than animals, but we are more than them. Our life goes beyond the physical realm here on this earth. A part of us was here before and will be when it ends. Animals on the other hand, die and decompose and continue on in the cycle of life.

Says who, the bible?

 

[Shannon Alexander]

The bible clearly states that nobody knows if animals have souls or not... King Solomon the wise said that and anybody that displays such overt signs of Christian faith as Kaendar should have seen that in the bible if he has read more than just the beginning of Genesis...

 

[eye exaggerate]

...curious to know the perspectives of Doer and Dr. J here (...and a host of others, as well)

 

[Heisenberg]

But agnostics don't believe in a god or diety right? So by definition, couldn't an agnostic be an atheist?
And I may just be too confused, but a religious person could also be agnostic right?

I like this thread.. weird.

You are correct. But just because atheism fits doesn't mean the person wants to use it as their title. Atheism is a term of ambiguity, some choose to be more precise.

Atheism tells you what, it does not tell you why. I think most of us would agree the why is very important information, but historically to the theist, the why is not important. All that is important is the rejection, it must be changed no matter the why. So the non-believer is labeled athiest and that's the end of it. Obviously atheism is a position that can be reached by many paths, yet when is the last time you heard any religion distinguish among atheists?

I label myself a rational skeptic, the atheism is axiomatically implied.

 

[eye exaggerate]

You are correct. But just because atheism fits doesn't mean the person wants to use it as their title. Atheism is a term of ambiguity, some choose to be more precise.

I label myself a rational skeptic, the atheism is axiomatically implied.

...in discussion we use terms like "religious" and "atheist" as terms to encompass a concept. If the word was 'potato', some people would be scared of it. All that we fear does the same thing, it gets bunched into the various levels of conscious mind. I think it is a mechanism we all have. When you look at 'axiomatically applied' it may look less like an action statement. It happens at levels below the surface.

...so, when you (yourself) say rational skeptic, is that on the fringe of agnostic?

 

[Heisenberg]

...in discussion we use terms like "religious" and "atheist" as terms to encompass a concept. If the word was 'potato', some people would be scarred of it. All that we fear does the same thing, it gets bunched into the various levels of conscious mind. I think it is a mechanism we all have. When you look at 'axiomatically applied' it may look less like an action statement. It happens at levels below the surface.

Sure and this could be another reason why Hep finds the terms to be a little confusing. In these threads, we often use them as shortcuts without having to constantly add the qualifiers and disclaimers, but when you are pondering the proper use of the terms as a title, as Hep is, it helps to keep the perspective in mind.

...so, when you (yourself) say rational skeptic, is that on the fringe of agnostic?

Agnosticism is an opinion about knowledge, so it is individually applied to specific areas of knowledge, traditionally theism.

Skepticism is a process to judge truth value of any knowledge. It can only be applied after the question of agnosticism is answered. If we do not, or can not, know a subject, then there is nothing to be skeptical of. So skepticism is not on the fringes of agnosticism, it is beyond it, post facto.

So I can not be skeptical of theism unless I agree that the knowledge is knowable. But, as you say, these concepts exists in different levels of the mind. If you take agnosticism out to it's extreme, then I am agnostic. Although I believe theism as expressed in religious forms is knowable and therefore subject to skepticism, I also acknowledge that it is possible, if God is all powerful, he could exist in such a way as to be unknowable. In this case skepticism becomes as useless as religion, because something unknowable to that extreme is also negligible. That is where the rational part comes in. If it does not interact with reality in any way, then it is not worthy of efforts to understand.

 

[eye exaggerate]

Sure and this could be another reason why Hep finds the terms to be a little confusing. In these threads, we often use them as shortcuts without having to constantly add the qualifiers and disclaimers, but when you are pondering the proper use of the terms as a title, as Hep is, it helps to keep the perspective in mind.



Agnosticism is an opinion about knowledge, so it is individually applied to specific areas of knowledge, traditionally theism.

Skepticism is a process to judge truth value of any knowledge. It can only be applied after the question of agnosticism is answered. If we do not, or can not, know a subject, then there is nothing to be skeptical of. So skepticism is not on the fringes of agnosticism, it is beyond it, post facto.

So I can not be skeptical of theism unless I agree that the knowledge is knowable. But, as you say, these concepts exists in different levels of the mind. If you take agnosticism out to it's extreme, then I am agnostic. Although I believe theism as expressed in religious forms is knowable and therefore subject to skepticism, I also acknowledge that it is possible, if God is all powerful, he could exist in such a way as to be unknowable. In this case skepticism becomes as useless as religion, because something unknowable to that extreme is also negligible. That is where the rational part comes in. If it does not interact with reality in any way, then it is not worthy of efforts to understand.

...well written, thanks. I'm going to let this one 'cook' for a while.

...in the meantime:

 

[Dislexicmidget2021]

Do humans acquire a soul at the moment of conception, or birth? Or sometime between then? Or when? Im conflicted by this question all the time.

When you are told that you have a soul and you actualy believe it...yet it still dosent merrit any truth anywhere outside of the persons/believers subjectivity.

 

[Dislexicmidget2021]

The reality of nature is ......... Death

i like your quote,but i prefer the reality of nature is life and the nature of reality is change.IMO

 

[eye exaggerate]

When you are told that you have a soul and you actualy believe it...yet it still dosent merrit any truth anywhere outside of the persons/believers subjectivity.

...doesn't it light up a person's life - against a 'dark matter' kind of background? Our brains are the sun, symbolically seen, as per the stories of 'visions' in the books of the bible. It 'looks out' and spreads light, which to me is one part of our cognition (male). But, it has a feminine 'receptive' quality at the same time, in that it takes in focused energy and plays it back as 'free-ality' (female).

 

[Dislexicmidget2021]

Eye you have an interesting way of describing what a soul would be,It still seems more so a subjective description,but I wont judge it as invalid.I Just cant say that I would know.

 

[eye exaggerate]

Eye you have an interesting way of describing what a soul would be,It still seems more so a subjective description,but I wont judge it as invalid.I Just cant say that I would know.

...thanks, that's more than fair.