Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do animals have souls?
kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 259 of 303 (334275)
07-22-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by 2ice_baked_taters
07-21-2006 10:12 PM


I agree with this completely. It is the limiting that is called belief.
It is why I maintain that science serves as a religion for many.
do you have any evidence of something that is outside science?
I have already told you why its not a religion.
I maintain that this question is misplaced. It is a philosophical question.
Can you specify what question you are talking about?
If its "Do animals have souls?" then its trying to answer a scientific question and is therefore placed correctly in the science forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-21-2006 10:12 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-26-2006 7:40 PM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 262 of 303 (335743)
07-27-2006 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by 2ice_baked_taters
07-26-2006 7:40 PM


Exactly what do you mean by outside?
Anything that can not be explained by science - and proove that it is so.
As I have stated why it is.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Limiting yourself to that which is scientifically observable could limit the truths you discover, IMHO.
I agree with this completely. It is the limiting that is called belief.
It is why I maintain that science serves as a religion for many.
You have just asserted. This is based on another assertion - to which I have asked the question at the biginning of my last post.
Please explain the scientific nature of the question.
The scientific nature of this question resides in our ability to detect the properties of a "soul" in animals - the same way we (supposedly) detect it in humans. If you response is "souls dont have properties we/science can detect" (our detection and the detection of 'science' are the same thing) - then the question is - how do you detect it and why do you think nobody (including animals) would do it (I have never detected anything like a "soul", that I cant explain though science, in me).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-26-2006 7:40 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 264 of 303 (336318)
07-29-2006 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by New Cat's Eye
07-28-2006 11:05 AM


Sure and I have and maintain my belief.
So if I gave you articles like those in Message 192, Message 111 and Message 115, and definitions like those in Message 113 and Message 115, would you still maintain your belief? Of course you would - you never actualy intended to give it another thought - thats because you have faith.
Faith Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Catholic Scientist writes:
Like you typed below, its unprovable but I cannot prove that. Spirituality is something that requires faith for belief, not scientific proof.
Catholic Scientist writes:
I guess I just don’t have to have proof to believe in something. Now, if a proven explanation discredits something that I believe, I’ll most likely stop believing it. This hasn’t happened WRT the soul.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Like I typed, though, some things don’t have to have proof. These are things that we must have faith in.
Catholic Scientist writes:
I can’t and I have no objective evidence. The evidence I have is personal and subjective. To me, it seems like my soul exists. I have no reason to think that it doesn’t exist. Therefore, I believe in the existence of souls.
And yet you answer:
All truthes (tenativly) have to be prooven - do you agree? Yes
and all that is prooven are truthes (tentativly) - do you agree? yes
What else exept science can proove anything? nothing
Please explain how you think that everything true (tentatively) has to be prooven, yet you say:
I guess I just don’t have to have proof to believe in something.
---------------------------------
As far as the title of the thread, I believe that souls are unique to humans. I see no reason to believe that animals have souls too.
Assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-28-2006 11:05 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2006 6:08 PM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 266 of 303 (336638)
07-30-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2006 6:08 PM


You know nothing of my intentions
I think you have made your intentions quite clear:
Catholic Scientist writes:
Like you typed below, its unprovable but I cannot prove that. Spirituality is something that requires faith for belief, not scientific proof.
Catholic Scientist writes:
I can’t and I have no objective evidence. The evidence I have is personal and subjective. To me, it seems like my soul exists. I have no reason to think that it doesn’t exist. Therefore, I believe in the existence of souls.
You dont intend on providing any kind of scientific evidence for the "soul".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
and damn....talk about
...
Assertions.
Its not an assertion when you give the expaination:
thats because you have faith.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Like I typed, though, some things don’t have to have proof. These are things that we must have faith in.
I had also provided a definition of faith:
Faith Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
------------------------------------------------------------------
That kinda pissed me off
I am deeply sorry if you were offended, but I do believe that if you are going to debate someone on the science forum you should avoid arguments (and this is an understatment) like:
Catholic Scientist writes:
I guess I just don’t have to have proof to believe in something. Now, if a proven explanation discredits something that I believe, I’ll most likely stop believing it. This hasn’t happened WRT the soul.
{bold mine}
------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING - DONT TAKE THIS PART SERIOUSLY
I stumbled across my faith again though.
I dont think you can stumble across faith. By its nature, faith is the lack of something (meaningful) to stumble upon. Faith is, IMHO, the anti-thought, providing people with false hope and taking away the one thing that really makes us human - our brain. (a bit poetic, i know, but as long as we are not doing any science...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2006 6:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-31-2006 9:50 AM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 268 of 303 (336939)
07-31-2006 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by New Cat's Eye
07-31-2006 9:50 AM


I have given it another thought and I intend to give it another thought again. For you to assert that my faith is thoughtless is not cool.
But you are going to have be a little more respectful and not insult me.
I dont understand why you get so worked up - I told you this is not an insult - not being skeptic, not giving any thought is the definition of faith:
"2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust"
{bold mine}
Faith Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
If what you meant by faith is (a) - my appologies, though that is not what you implied earlier:
Catholic Scientist writes:
Like I typed, though, some things don’t have to have proof. These are things that we must have faith in.
If what you meant by faith is (b) - then you are trying to say that you are both skeptical and not skeptical {faith} of the "soul" at the same time - this is of course a logical contradiction.
As someone who is claiming to have faith, let me tell you that this is not what it is like.
Besides, maybe you can learn something from me about what it is actually like to have faith.
I never pretended that I know what faith is (this is irrelivent),
all I said was that your use of the word faith, if used to describe your experience correctly, is contradictory to a skeptical point of view (giving it another thought) - you cant do them both.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-31-2006 9:50 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2006 1:07 PM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 270 of 303 (337146)
08-01-2006 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-01-2006 3:08 AM


As a scientific question this topic is a dead end since it is not a scientificly based question.
What do you mean by "a scientificly based question"? What tool would you use to answer this question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-01-2006 3:08 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 274 of 303 (337417)
08-02-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2006 1:07 PM


I don't think it is neccessarily contradictory
Please provide an example.
but it might be a little illogical
Whats the difference between "a little illogical" and just plain illogical?
I don't have a problem with having religious beliefs that are formally illogical.
"formally illogical" as opposed to what? Is there another kind of logic I dont know about?
This is exactly what I am saying about faith, it doesnt matter wheather you are illogical or not.
Formal logic has its place and religion is not it.
So your saying that religion is 'formaly illogical'?
Well, I have done both.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=skepticism
Faith Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Read the two definitions and tell me they are not contradictory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2006 1:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2006 5:03 PM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 276 of 303 (337647)
08-03-2006 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2006 5:03 PM


This is exactly what I am saying about faith, it doesnt matter wheather you are illogical or not.
I think it does. If it was a logical contradiction (illogical) then I'd have a problem with it.
So your saying that religion is 'formaly illogical'?
Yeah, don't you think it is?
Yes I do, does this mean that you have a problem with religion?
Or maybe religion is an informal logic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2006 5:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-04-2006 11:31 AM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 278 of 303 (338109)
08-05-2006 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by New Cat's Eye
08-04-2006 11:31 AM


I don't have a problem with religion because I don't think religion has to pass the 'logic test', especially if god has magic powers.
Why do you think that? Why is religion excluded from logical scrutiny?
Like I typed before, religion can be a little illogical, no problem, the problem comes in when there are stark contradictions, when its very illogical.
So being a little illogical is o.k.? Oh, why didnt you grade my physics test? I would have gotten a higher score for sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-04-2006 11:31 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-07-2006 11:19 AM kalimero has replied
 Message 283 by Ben!, posted 08-07-2006 5:59 PM kalimero has replied
 Message 285 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2006 11:55 AM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 282 of 303 (338385)
08-07-2006 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-07-2006 11:19 AM


Joy is for living. Religion brings many people joy.
That is irrelivent. Science also brings joy but you wouldnt say that thats why it doesnt need logic. Religion presumes to know thing that are in the realm of science (the creation of life, the source of conscience...) therefore it should require logic to put together hypotheisis and evidence.
IMO religion gives joy just like drugs bring joy - through false hope. (but thats off topic)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-07-2006 11:19 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 284 of 303 (338415)
08-07-2006 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Ben!
08-07-2006 5:59 PM


What makes you think that something MUST be logical?
Because that is what allows me to explain it and make predictions about it. logic is what ties the over all expanation (theory/hypotheisis) with the actual evidence.
Humans aren't logical in their everyday lives, so ... why would you expect anything to be logical?
Humans are not logical, but should strive to be logical for the reasons writen above. but whet somebody says that being illogical is o.k. when there is a logical alternative, then thats like saying: "I dont want to know how this works I'm just glad (joyfull) it does" - which is just ignorant.
Some people's arguments actually turn out to be logical, usually due to great practice. Many arguments turn out to be illogical or based on false premises.
If we used only illogical arguements to try to understand the universe - what is the probability that we will get it right?
What is the probability if we use logical arguements?
There are an infinite amount of illogical arguements making the probability of getting the one we choose, arbitrarily, right - just about zero.
Logical arguements, although coming from an illogical body, have the advantage of disreguarding any obviously illogical arguements, by them being not comletely arbitrary, and thus have a better chance of actually being right.
What is the purpose of putting religion under logical scrutiny? Even if illogical, religion does serve many purposes.
Would you say the ends justify the means in this case? Especially when religion tries to not only "make people happy" (which I also think is mot bad but misguided) but also to make very arbitrary (obviously illogical) arguements about the way the universe works.
Regardless, all religion has to do is avoid causing cognitive dissonace in it's memebers.
But it does do that by this definition:
Cognitive dissonance Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
when it tries to argue 'incongruous beliefs and attitudes' (the bible for example).
For believers, it doesn't have to be logical.
Hence the circular reasoning in religion.
I think religious and non-religious people alike make the mistake of not understanding what we really are. Both tend to be idealists in my experience.
You object to idealizing but you also know "what we really are"?
I never said I was completely logical, just stiving for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Ben!, posted 08-07-2006 5:59 PM Ben! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2006 12:06 PM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 288 of 303 (338530)
08-08-2006 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by New Cat's Eye
08-08-2006 11:55 AM


Why do you think it should? I mean, according to the religion, God has magical powers. How would you hold that up to logical scrutiny? You'd just conclude he didn't exist, I guess. But for those who believe he does, what is logic going to do for anything about God? Why should they have to?
So your saying that the purpose of those people is to believe in god, even if they must 'put aside' logic? Like I said, if only you could have graded my tests, I wouldnt have to use logic beacuse my goal would be to get 100% (I would have faith that I get 100%) and so any use of logic would be unnecessary.
Thats retarded. Don't you remember me typing something like that religion could be a little illogical but not science?, IIRC
But dont you understand that I have faith in physics {/sarcasm) . I dont need logic, and so I can make up whatever physical law I wish as long as it is not self conrtadictory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2006 11:55 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2006 2:43 PM kalimero has not replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 289 of 303 (338538)
08-08-2006 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by New Cat's Eye
08-08-2006 12:06 PM


OK, now try applying that to a religion or philosophy. THere's not much evidence nor predictions to make.
What about what the bible says? No predictions in there?
Of course there is no evidence thats why it cant be logical (one reason anyway).
I believe god exists before I pick a religion.
based on what?
I want some answers to the why's, and religion can provide some, even is they don't follow logical rules.
So how do you know that you are right if it isnt logical, how do you test your 'why' expanation?
The religion doesn't have to be logical because that is not what it is for.
Religion is for answering questions about existance and that has to be logical.
Thats retarded too. Just because we'll allow some illogic doesn't mean we have to have no logic at all.
I didnt say that there is no logic at all, but the more logic we use the less illogic we use, and therefore we are able to say that we, at least, did our best to try to answer the questions in our lives instead of taking them, even some of them, on faith.
The Bible isn't a religion.
No but its the prediction a religion makes about the world, which have to be logical. Thats whats so dangerous about religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2006 12:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2006 3:00 PM kalimero has not replied
 Message 292 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2006 3:03 PM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 293 of 303 (338613)
08-08-2006 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by New Cat's Eye
08-08-2006 3:03 PM


Good idea.
Please dont take offence because of my agressive style of debate - I think you are the only person here (since I started about a year ago) to raise any kind of good arguement in favour of religion.
I will be glad to start a new thead and continue our debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2006 3:03 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 295 of 303 (338915)
08-10-2006 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-10-2006 8:54 AM


Of course the how is not important. It is only the why that matters.
I think 'authoritative' assertions like that are what drive us to debate the debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-10-2006 8:54 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-10-2006 9:19 PM kalimero has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024