Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 4:52 AM
43 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 41 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
678910
11
Author Topic:   Existence After Death
Panda
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 151 of 163 (586873)
10-15-2010 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by caffeine
10-15-2010 9:32 AM


Re: Life After Death
caffeine writes:

I don't know if there's ever been a law about coveting (how could it be enforced)


I agree.
That means that at least 20% of the 10C's is beyond our ability legislate.

caffeine writes:

many countries have completely rewritten their legal codes. The Czech Criminal and Civil Codes, for instance, are very recent - they're amended from the Communist era codes, which were themselves de novo creations. Sure, they are influenced by old legal traditions and older laws, but some bits - such as laws regarding blasphemy, are simply gone.


Yes, I agree.
Their laws are not based on the 10C's.

caffeine writes:

Amongst countries like Britain with different legal systems, where the ancient bits cling around in statute law long after they become enforceable, the laws are still on the books. Old laws about blasphemy and the preservation of the Sabbath are still there to read, even if they've been superseded by recent laws. There was an attempt to bring a blasphemy prosecution in England fairly recently, which the judge angrily dismissed as a waste of time, so the law was formally abolished as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.


As I said in my earlier posts: they are a few of the 10C's in the legal systems.
The British legal system is constantly growing and changing and the crime of Blasphemy was introduced in the 16th/17th century - and has since been removed.
This shows that English law is not built on the 10C's.

caffeine writes:

It's all well and good to say that these laws (murder and theft and whatnot) are part of standard human morality, but I'm not so sure that blasphemy is. When Christian people put these things in the legal codes, quoting the Bible as they did so, I think it's safe to argue them as coming from the Ten Commandments.


Yes, there are a couple of laws that are influenced by the Bible.
But that is completely different from:

Dyluck writes:

Most of land law is build on the 10C


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by caffeine, posted 10-15-2010 9:32 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Species8472
Junior Member (Idle past 2958 days)
Posts: 29
Joined: 01-13-2010


Message 152 of 163 (586890)
10-15-2010 11:54 AM


Forgive me for jumping in and ruin your off-topic discussion, I have an issue that I need you to resolve for me.

I tend to think of myself as more than just my physical body. I am more than just a collection of molecules. I am more than a collection of firing neurons that are arranged in a specific way. Yes, it is true that I am the result of the specific arrangement of neurons. But what I am is greater than the collection of the parts.

That said, I have been bothered by the concept of multiple personality disorder. I have done some study of this phenomenon in psychology. I know that mainstream psychology dismisses the alternate personalities as just aberations around the core personality. But I really do see them as having a potential to have a soul of their own. They certainly exhibit all signs of being different people existing in the same body.

The question is this. Treatments for such "disorder" range from merging these personalities into one to downright killing all but one. Isn't this murder?


Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by ringo, posted 10-15-2010 12:31 PM Species8472 has not yet responded
 Message 159 by Panda, posted 10-15-2010 1:53 PM Species8472 has not yet responded
 Message 160 by Phage0070, posted 10-15-2010 4:52 PM Species8472 has not yet responded
 Message 162 by Taz, posted 10-16-2010 3:13 AM Species8472 has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16227
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 153 of 163 (586899)
10-15-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Species8472
10-15-2010 11:54 AM


Species8472 writes:

I know that mainstream psychology dismisses the alternate personalities as just aberations around the core personality. But I really do see them as having a potential to have a soul of their own. They certainly exhibit all signs of being different people existing in the same body.


More than one soul in the same body?


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Species8472, posted 10-15-2010 11:54 AM Species8472 has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 163 (586901)
10-15-2010 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Panda
10-14-2010 6:39 PM


Re: Life After Death
Panda, I think you are incorrect about several of the commandments.

Panda writes:

Never legally enforced/prohibited:
"Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy"

"You shall not commit adultery"

North Carolina still allows law suits for alienation of affection (spouse stealing) and criminal conversation (adultery) as do a few other states. These laws were far more widespread at one time.

Many states do still have blue laws on the books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law

quote:
Many states still prohibit selling alcohol on Sunday, or at least before noon on Sunday, under the rationale that people should be in church on Sunday morning, or at least not drinking.

Occasionally illegal:
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour"

This commandment is not about general lying but about making false legal allegations and offering false testimony. This is universally illegal in the US.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Panda, posted 10-14-2010 6:39 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Panda, posted 10-15-2010 12:54 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 155 of 163 (586903)
10-15-2010 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by NoNukes
10-15-2010 12:37 PM


Re: Life After Death
Panda, I think you are incorrect about several of the commandments.

North Carolina still allows law suits for alienation of affection (spouse stealing) and criminal conversation (adultery) as do a few other states. These laws were far more widespread at one time.


I realise that it is possible to find countries which will require a 're-shuffling' of a couple of the commands I listed.
But if the legal systems were based on the 10C's then all 10 (well, maybe 8) would have been 'on the books' at the beginning - and not added and removed according to political whim.

But the re-shuffling does not contradict my statement that:

quote:
Most of land law is build on the 10C
is not true.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by NoNukes, posted 10-15-2010 12:37 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by NoNukes, posted 10-15-2010 1:35 PM Panda has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 163 (586911)
10-15-2010 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Panda
10-15-2010 12:54 PM


Re: Life After Death
Panda writes:

I realise that it is possible to find countries which will require a 're-shuffling' of a couple of the commands I listed.

Then why say that those commandments were never enforced? Even your comment about the commandment that was only occasionally enforced was completely wrong. Perjury has been nearly universally illegal. But you don't need the Bible to tell you that lying in court undermines order.

But the re-shuffling does not contradict my statement that: Most of land law is build on the 10C is not true

I think you are correct in your conclusion, I just think your argument is not so well supported.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Panda, posted 10-15-2010 12:54 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Panda, posted 10-15-2010 1:49 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 157 of 163 (586912)
10-15-2010 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by NoNukes
10-15-2010 1:35 PM


Re: Life After Death
NoNukes writes:

Then why say that those commandments were never enforced?


Because I wasn't going to spend hours researching evidience for a conclusion that was patently true.
I have elaborated on my first post, but no-one seems to have noticed.

{abe}TBH: It feels like people are "arguing against the analogy, rather than the arguement".

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by NoNukes, posted 10-15-2010 1:35 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2817
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 158 of 163 (586913)
10-15-2010 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by dyluck
10-14-2010 6:04 PM


Re: Hypocracy, believe this unless it is in contradiction then revise..
You are still are skirting the point. You said that if God wanted Hitler to go to heaven then God would have intervened so that Hitler would have changed his ways and repented.
By this logic God did not want Hitler to repent and hence allowed for his evil actions and his subsequent damnation. You can not have it both ways. If your God requires obedience and acceptance of the tennants of your faith, then if you abide by those tenants you should be in good standing. So of course someone like Hitler would be, according to historical and current Christian tenants, worthy and capable of forgiveness and thus receive forgiveness.

Many people take issue with that concept. Either you stand by your religion or you do not. Cherry picking the least painful bits is hypocracy.
I find it interesting that atheist know more about religions than those that pretend to practice them?

It makes no sense going around insisting one particular faith, or belief or lifestyle for that matter trumps any other. Fundalmentalist condemnation is not only arrogant, but ignorant as well since it assumes a position of unquestionable authority.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by dyluck, posted 10-14-2010 6:04 PM dyluck has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 159 of 163 (586914)
10-15-2010 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Species8472
10-15-2010 11:54 AM


Species8472 writes:

The question is this. Treatments for such "disorder" range from merging these personalities into one to downright killing all but one. Isn't this murder?

This question seems the easiest to answer...
Murder is the illegal death of a human.
No death or no illegality: no murder.
So to answer your question: No.

Species8472 writes:

I tend to think of myself as more than just my physical body. I am more than just a collection of molecules. I am more than a collection of firing neurons that are arranged in a specific way. Yes, it is true that I am the result of the specific arrangement of neurons. But what I am is greater than the collection of the parts.

That said, I have been bothered by the concept of multiple personality disorder. I have done some study of this phenomenon in psychology. I know that mainstream psychology dismisses the alternate personalities as just aberations around the core personality. But I really do see them as having a potential to have a soul of their own. They certainly exhibit all signs of being different people existing in the same body.

IMHO: This was the interesting part of your post.
You should request a new thread...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Species8472, posted 10-15-2010 11:54 AM Species8472 has not yet responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 163 (586947)
10-15-2010 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Species8472
10-15-2010 11:54 AM


Species8472 writes:

I tend to think of myself as more than just my physical body.

Thats called "ego", we all have it. Tell me if you actually find some of that other stuff and you will actually have a reason to think it exists.

Species8472 writes:

But what I am is greater than the collection of the parts.

But isn't that assessment of "greater" a value judgment? Like for instance I would consider my computer's hard drive to be greater than the sum of its parts; giving me a pile of its parts isn't an equivalent. Yet to the universe it is the same stuff.

So what exactly makes you more than the sum of your parts? Is it real, or value assigned by your mind?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Species8472, posted 10-15-2010 11:54 AM Species8472 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Taz, posted 10-16-2010 3:03 AM Phage0070 has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1368 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 161 of 163 (586993)
10-16-2010 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Phage0070
10-15-2010 4:52 PM


Phage0070 writes:

So what exactly makes you more than the sum of your parts? Is it real, or value assigned by your mind?


It seems to me that this is extremely easy for me to answer. But first, you must tell me where you live so I can go to your home and chop your head off. Considering the fact that you seem to imply there is nothing about you-you that makes you greater than the sum of your parts, I would think that you would have no problem if I remove one component of you from the rest of your body. I promise to superglue your head back on afterward.

Come on, time to demonstrate to us if you really believe you aren't greater than the sum of your parts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Phage0070, posted 10-15-2010 4:52 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Phage0070, posted 10-16-2010 3:20 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1368 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 162 of 163 (586994)
10-16-2010 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Species8472
10-15-2010 11:54 AM


Funny that you mentioned this. Just the other day, I watched an episode of star trek voyager where Tuvok and Nelix were involved in a transporter accident that fused the two together. The entire episode was about the crew getting used to the new person that was a combination of the two crewmen. Finally, at the end of the episode they found a way to separate them again. But the new crewman didn't want to go through with the procedure. He did not want to "die". In the end, Janeway had to force him to go through with the procedure, which he described as "murder".

This is an issue that, I suspect, has many implications that most people just simply don't want to tackle. We must first define what a person is and isn't. Since there is no fine line, there will undoubtedly be varying opinion on this matter.

As for me, I'm staying neutral on this topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Species8472, posted 10-15-2010 11:54 AM Species8472 has not yet responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 163 (586996)
10-16-2010 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Taz
10-16-2010 3:03 AM


Taz writes:

Considering the fact that you seem to imply there is nothing about you-you that makes you greater than the sum of your parts, I would think that you would have no problem if I remove one component of you from the rest of your body.

As I illustrated with the hard drive example, the particular arrangement of things can be assigned greater meaning by minds without there actually being anything special about those parts themselves. For example, I can value the particular arrangement of my hard drive over say someone else's hard drive, or a lump of exactly the same materials in my hard drive in no particular configuration, without positing the existence of some "soul" of my drive on which to assign this worth.

Similarly I can assign greater worth to having my head right where it is rather than being removed without suggesting that there is some intrinsic quality of worth which is objectively created by its fixation and destroyed by its removal. In other words, I can value staying alive without believing that the universe values my staying alive.

My quote you cited I believe conveyed this concept rather concisely. When someone says that they are more than the sum of their parts they are referring to the value they assign to their parts being arranged in a particular manner. Once they admit this "greater summation" is purely conceptual it is easy to see why assumptions of souls to embody this value is unwarranted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Taz, posted 10-16-2010 3:03 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
678910
11
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019