Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Theism and Atheism

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 3:39pm

Einfach

Einfach

1,433 posts

Weird supposition, given Turing's test that no machine can pass. If you would build such a machine, however, it will have your soul as its own.

Which animals have souls?  At which point does the soul arise?
Was the first soul created in sponges, flatworms, insects?
What about earthworms or nematodes?
Do jellyfish?

 

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 5:34pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,673 posts

Knight

Which animals have souls?  At which point does the soul arise?
Was the first soul created in sponges, flatworms, insects?
What about earthworms or nematodes?
Do jellyfish?

To add to the above.
In the case of the robot sharing your soul, if that robot commits a sin are you held responsible for that sin? What if the robot becomes an atheist? Where does your soul go then?
What if we clone someone? Does that clone have it's own soul or are you sharing a soul? If you do the same questions apply here as does with the robot sharing your soul.
What of people with split brains? They develop two distinct personalities, one can be a Christian while the other atheist. Does the body get a second soul? If it's both the same soul then where does the person who is simultaneously a Christian and an atheist go?

 

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 5:46pm

Einfach

Einfach

1,433 posts

To add to the above.

Say a person has a frontal lobe lobotomy.  Has their soul somehow changed?
Or some type of injury involving the brain?  What happened to their previous soul?

 

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 5:48pm

Einfach

Einfach

1,433 posts

To add to the above:

Our minds are in constant flux.  How can constant change be represented with the same object (the same soul)?  Does the soul comprise the mind across time?  But people can change their mind for the better or worse.
If sins are damages against the soul, then why do we necessarily "inherit" the sins that we had in the past in the next second and in the next second?  Our minds are constantly changing.

 

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 6:16pm

Highfire

Highfire

2,936 posts

Documentary

I'll plop this here. :)
This could provide insight to the theory of a "soul" or consciousness.

Personally? I don't believe in a soul. I don't see any evidence of there being one, either :D
Sorry I haven't been here for a while, btw :>

- H

 

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 8:09pm

Einfach

Einfach

1,433 posts

Atheist: "Why is murder bad?"
Theist: "Because God said so."

But my question is - Why did God say so?  Why did he say that this is good and this is bad without them already being good and bad in the first place?  And if they are inherently good, then they are inherently good no matter God's existence - God's existence does not determine morality in that case.

 

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 8:12pm

Einfach

Einfach

1,433 posts

You're applying logic to a single factor of existance.

No - this is not the case.  The case is that that single factor of existence implies logic.

 

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 10:34pm

MRWalker82

MRWalker82

3,870 posts

Moderator

Well, a ridiculous statement requires ridiculous arguments.

Quite the contrary. You've made many ridiculous assertions through the history of this thread and most people have responded with factual data and evidence which disproves your claims. Honestly I think you are just getting frustrated that you have been unsuccessful at converting people with falsified data, appeals to emotion, and personal testimony. Forgive us if we require facts before we alter our position.

In parting: "Sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat" which means "A wise man states nothing as true which he cannot prove"

 

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 10:40pm

Highfire

Highfire

2,936 posts

"A wise man states nothing as true which he cannot prove"

I disagree. :)
Emotions, feelings, intentions?
Rarely can they be proven. It's through peoples words and the outcomes of their actions that these are often thought on.

I intend this to be the only argument I know against that statement. Whilst you can't claim it to be true, I cannot claim that my intention of making this not viable true either.

You might be able to prove it, but right now I feel my argument still stands. The only person who knows that is me - and I cannot prove otherwise :) (as of now, anyway)

- H

 

Posted Apr 10, '11 at 12:39am

vesperbot

vesperbot

986 posts

Carbon dating tests carried out in 1988 showed that the cloth was dated from 13th or 14th centuries."

Carbon testing was proven inaccurate because the cloth sustained high heating and fire in about the same period, thus being infused with 14C from burning wood etc, making the tests return wrong data.

 
Reply to Theism and Atheism

You must be logged in to post a reply!