Bunch of dam nonsense

[Thomas]

humans are animals and the trees are above them. as far as the rocks are concerned, i used to thinks they had souls when i was a child. cycnicism makes monsters of us all.

While scientifically you could say humans are a type of animal, but spritually we are on a much higher level than animals, (after all, do you consider yourself equal to the bacteria growing on a pile of sh** ? :eek: :) :P ) trees definitly do not have soles, though I do enjoy the warmth from a crisp fire, or the sweet smell of sawdust in my workshop, and as for the rocks - a cold lifeless form of matter. I would find it interesting if someone were to debate the equality of a rock.

[Queso]

define the soul, and get back to me.

[Thomas]

define the soul, and get back to me.

My use of the word "soul" in that comment can be defined by me as:

the part of you that lives on after your physical body dies.

which since you do not believe in life after death, I'm guessing this means nothing to you.

But if you can come up with a better definition please tell me.

[Queso]

aristotle: if the eye was a single organism, it's soul would be sight, because everything about it, revolves around sight. i brought this up in another thread a few days ago.

 

the only things that live on after our deaths are our legacy, and that is not our soul... that is our lifes work, our voice into the future.

[Thomas]

aristotle: if the eye was a single organism, it's soul would be sight, because everything about it, revolves around sight. i brought this up in another thread a few days ago.

 

the only things that live on after our deaths are our legacy, and that is not our soul... that is our lifes work, our voice into the future.

That, Mr. orbycylce, is where we have our disagreement, the only things that live on after our deaths ON EARTH are our legacies. The legacy is not the soul; and this universe is the blink of an eye compared to eternity afterwards.

 

So what do you think its all about? Do you think the earth will eventually be destoyed, if all of humanity is lost at death, then what is the point of it all? I know, but I want to hear your answer.

[Tormod]

While scientifically you could say humans are a type of animal, but spritually we are on a much higher level than animals, (after all, do you consider yourself equal to the bacteria growing on a pile of sh** ?

<snip>

would find it interesting if someone were to debate the equality of a rock.

 

I think you are confusing the concept of "spritual superiority" with "existensial equality".

 

Nobody will argue that it is more important to save a piece of rock than a human being.

 

But to argue that humans are more important than bacteria requires context. In the overall scheme of things, it is natural for human beings to assume we are more important than bacteria.

 

However, when a human being dies the last laugh is on the bacteria in the soil.

[Thomas]

I think you are confusing the concept of "spritual superiority" with "existensial equality".

 

Nobody will argue that it is more important to save a piece of rock than a human being.

 

But to argue that humans are more important than bacteria requires context. In the overall scheme of things, it is natural for human beings to assume we are more important than bacteria.

 

However, when a human being dies the last laugh is on the bacteria in the soil.

Yes, I know the bacteria have the last laugh after whats left of the physical human body decays on this earth,

 

the argument that keeps reoccuing is over whether or not there is an afterlife, at

which there seems to be a stalemate, because there's not proof there is, and no proof there's not.

[Tormod]

the argument that keeps reoccuing is over whether or not there is an afterlife, at which there seems to be a stalemate, because there's not proof there is, and no proof there's not.

 

As such it's not a stalemate. Science's answer is that there is no afterlife. The religious answer is that there is, at least for some. These views are currently incompatible.

[Queso]

That, Mr. orbycylce, is where we have our disagreement,

 

2 things about this reply.

this isn't the first time people have mispelled my nickname, i don't get it. it's right in front of you, like 20 times. is it a joke, are you ridiculing it's unusual-ness, or....? oh well, it's kind of funny.

 

and, mr. thomas, i disagree with almost everything you say.

:eek: must go back to sleep :)

[Thomas]

2 things about this reply.

this isn't the first time people have mispelled my nickname, i don't get it. it's right in front of you, like 20 times. is it a joke, are you ridiculing it's unusual-ness, or....? oh well, it's kind of funny.

 

and, mr. thomas, i disagree with almost everything you say.

:eek: must go back to sleep :P

About yor nickname Mr. Orbycicyleee, :P :) :) :P

what exactly does it mean?

 

My nickname is just Thomas, but I have posted on some threads as "Vontork of the Klingon Empire"

 

Also, If you disagree with almost everything I say , what do you agree with?

How about Disco?

[motherengine]

As such it's not a stalemate. Science's answer is that there is no afterlife. The religious answer is that there is, at least for some. These views are currently incompatible.

 

science does not have 'answers' to give only facts and their is nothing in the history of scientific inquest that definitively proves consciousness ends with death, only that it appears to. sorry but their is a very big difference here.

[Queso]

Also, If you disagree with almost everything I say , what do you agree with?

How about Disco?

 

everything you say isn't everything. i agree with lots of things.

and no, disco blows.

[geko]

I actually just found myself having read through this whole thread from start to finish, and i find myself wondering.

 

Why is it that various people proclaim their faith in the validity and pragmatism of spirituality, after-life and soul, and then also make various statements using science as the scape goat and shoulder to lean on? It's like, "humans are more important than bacteria, for numerous reasons but also that we have a soul", and then in the same sentence compile a statement about "rocks being nothing more than fundamental material".

 

Believing that rocks are nothing more than fundamental material is nothing more than assent towards knowledge that you have gained or been given somewhere in your life-time. It is a scientific observation - if it werent for the method you wouldnt have this knowledge to make the statement. It took analysis and a telescope to realise this idea is true.

 

As you will be able to know this is but one of many examples, but anyway.

 

So my question once again, is how can you make scientific statements and have absolute faith in the method that's used to gain the information (to the point of making the statement yourself), but then when that same system is used to analyse and try and make sense of something that you hold dear to you (an existing soul that enters an after-life) you reject it's conclusion deeming you know more than it, or that the method is obviously flawed in some way, or is just unable (due maybe to its materialistic nature), to probe, observe and quantify something as wonderous as the soul? How do you decide that's it's flawed in one respect, but not in another. How can you hold a system of thought as valid sometimes but not others?

 

Also, to the sceptics and debunkers, personally i think it's healthy to realise that 'faith in an afterlife' or the 'existence of jesus' is what's known as a "core-belief". Rational argument has no impact on such a thing (just watch the response to my question... i doubt there will be one because unforunately i think it's not understood....... or maybe now ive said this there will be...).

 

The core belief in an after-life, soul etc., can be uncovered by asking certain questions, various questions. For example;

 

why is it that you believe in the afterlife?

-because i believe there is more to life and existence than just this crude, 3D, materialistic plane.

 

and why is it there you believe that there is more to life than what we know of?

-because there is a special place for humans - we have a purpose - we are special

 

why do you believe that there is a special place for humans and that we're special?

-because this is what it says in the holy-book

 

and why do you think this holy-book is correct?

-because it is scripture that was handed down by the almighty to our lord and saviour jesus christ

 

and what makes you think that all this is true and that jesus ever existed?

-because it is! Jesus told us, it's there in the book

 

but HOW do you know it's true, you cant use jesus told us because we need to know HOW you know this is true as well?

-it just is - i know it to be true

 

But how?

-it just is, OK?! no shutup! leave me alone

 

This is a corebelief. No further rational argument is possible. The person either continues to believe in their stance or reject it realising that it's unsound reasoning.

[Queso]

very nicely put geko.

one thing I still havn't gotten an answer with.....what is biblical proof?

most of the time, people who believe, who i get in small arguments with, bring up "well we have biblical proof, there's biblical proof."

BUT WHAT IS THAT??? IS SOMEONE EVER GOING TO TELL ME??? I STILL DON'T KNOW!

[Queso]

p.s. i havn't decided what orbsycli means yet, it came to me in a daydream.

[Kevin Wirth]

Can someone please give this thread some sense of direction? If not I'll close it soon.

 

OK, sure. Everyone without Christ is going to Hell.

 

And yes - it IS empircal. Just shoot yourself in the head and find out in mere minutes.

[Queso]

So kevin, where is hell? and how do your alleged souls get there?