QUOTE(Aemeth)And let's face the facts, humans dont just operate on instincts.
You don't really believe that, do you..?
Forget all the books, and all the theories guys, really...They'll only confuse you...Lets just try common sense...
You do not know the circumstances for every action of another individual...Point blank, end of discussion, that's it...No ifs ands, or buts about it...
That said, you cannot absolutely make a "right" or "wrong" call involving anybody but yourself, and shit, even that can get tricky...Laws are based on standards, and standards are built by majority...
Animals have a soul, because they are alive...raum already pointed out what it is that we have, that animals don't a few posts up...That element was not a soul...
Can somebody either offer up some refuteable evidince along the lines of animals not having a soul based on what we have or not..?
Do animals have souls?
-
AYHJA
- 392
- Posts: 37990
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Contact:
-
Aemeth
- Posts: 1280
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:37 am
TT...what I was trying to say is..
Absolutes exist within yourself only. I know its confusing, but I can't say right and wrong don't exist at all, because they do. Technically, I am a relativist, but the definition of Relativism is different than the thoughts of which Relativists embody.
C'mon A, do you really think we operate on instincts just as animals do? If so, why did the human couple put in the zoo completely refuse when asked to make intercourse in public? If we acted out of instinct, not only would free will get crushed, but murder and rape would not be wrong (nothing would be). Nothing would be right either. Right and wrong would not exist at all, since everyone could only act one way, no matter what. (TT, you see what I mean between no right and wrong at all and a right and wrong existing within a person? Relativists claim right and wrong is relative since it is just a metaphor, and doesnt really exist. I disagree.) But yea, I think this is where the knowledge of good and evil/fruit from the tree deal comes in. See, the knowledge of good and evil is what separates us from the animals, right?
But as I have been thinking about this, I have run into bigger problems. I can't really see the benefit of the resulting mankind if Adam and Eve *didnt* eat the fruit. Yea, world would be perfect, but we wouldnt know, because we would be acting out of instinct (since there would be no wrong, there would be no choices to make, no free will, etc). Basically, perfection is unrecognizable without imperfection. Hmm..
Absolutes exist within yourself only. I know its confusing, but I can't say right and wrong don't exist at all, because they do. Technically, I am a relativist, but the definition of Relativism is different than the thoughts of which Relativists embody.
C'mon A, do you really think we operate on instincts just as animals do? If so, why did the human couple put in the zoo completely refuse when asked to make intercourse in public? If we acted out of instinct, not only would free will get crushed, but murder and rape would not be wrong (nothing would be). Nothing would be right either. Right and wrong would not exist at all, since everyone could only act one way, no matter what. (TT, you see what I mean between no right and wrong at all and a right and wrong existing within a person? Relativists claim right and wrong is relative since it is just a metaphor, and doesnt really exist. I disagree.) But yea, I think this is where the knowledge of good and evil/fruit from the tree deal comes in. See, the knowledge of good and evil is what separates us from the animals, right?
But as I have been thinking about this, I have run into bigger problems. I can't really see the benefit of the resulting mankind if Adam and Eve *didnt* eat the fruit. Yea, world would be perfect, but we wouldnt know, because we would be acting out of instinct (since there would be no wrong, there would be no choices to make, no free will, etc). Basically, perfection is unrecognizable without imperfection. Hmm..
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
mrniceguy
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:36 am
-
house9591
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:08 am
-
raum
- Posts: 3944
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:51 am
mr nice guy,
Do you not know if people have souls...
or
Do you not know if people are right about what they think they know about souls?
things that make ya go hmm?,
raum
Do you not know if people have souls...
or
Do you not know if people are right about what they think they know about souls?
things that make ya go hmm?,
raum
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
lickmickhotmama
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:26 pm
I dunno dude, the fact that the concept of spiritual entities hasn't been scientifically realized, we must first question our own souls, if ever they exist...
But because we couldn't explain it at this point in time, faith serves its purpose
But because we couldn't explain it at this point in time, faith serves its purpose
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
raum
- Posts: 3944
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:51 am
lick,
welcome to this little corner of the forum. I hope you like it. Be sure to poke around.
Now, about your comment:
If there is only the material component, and nothing exists which is more base than matter, then what is a sub-atomic particle's essence, and how can it be quantified?
By definition, the spiritual is the *immaterial* but actual; that which transcends the fixed material plain, and yet is still quantifiable.
Energy is not material, thus is is "spiritual." In fact, by spirit's indication, two things are referred to, A animating and vital priniciple (which energy certainly is) and in the alchemical sense, the modern defnition of "volatility."
The distinctions of the Soul, on the other hand, are modernly defined by the accepted "modes of consciouness."
Science says "there is no Spirit," and when it finds that there exists that which fits the definition of the Spirit, Science names it anything else but Spirit, less it be revealed for the Proud Child that it is.
Keep your skepticism intact. I am not saying believe me, at all. A person owes it to them themself to be far more true to their own convictions and experiences than the words of any Priest, findings of any Scientist, or coin of any Purse.
But know that by ridiculing the definition or creating arbitrary arguments Science confounds itself, and inhibits discovery; which is contrary to Science's Methodology.
vertical,
raum
welcome to this little corner of the forum. I hope you like it. Be sure to poke around.
Now, about your comment:
If there is only the material component, and nothing exists which is more base than matter, then what is a sub-atomic particle's essence, and how can it be quantified?
By definition, the spiritual is the *immaterial* but actual; that which transcends the fixed material plain, and yet is still quantifiable.
Energy is not material, thus is is "spiritual." In fact, by spirit's indication, two things are referred to, A animating and vital priniciple (which energy certainly is) and in the alchemical sense, the modern defnition of "volatility."
The distinctions of the Soul, on the other hand, are modernly defined by the accepted "modes of consciouness."
Science says "there is no Spirit," and when it finds that there exists that which fits the definition of the Spirit, Science names it anything else but Spirit, less it be revealed for the Proud Child that it is.
Keep your skepticism intact. I am not saying believe me, at all. A person owes it to them themself to be far more true to their own convictions and experiences than the words of any Priest, findings of any Scientist, or coin of any Purse.
But know that by ridiculing the definition or creating arbitrary arguments Science confounds itself, and inhibits discovery; which is contrary to Science's Methodology.
vertical,
raum
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
Aemeth
- Posts: 1280
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:37 am
Is that in part why they say quantum physics proves God more and more everyday?
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |