When does a baby recieve it's soul?

Selective belief

Me: Yes, that's what I'm telling you
Her: I don't believe you
Me: Well there it is.
Click to expand...

Amazing isn't it how the lady in question so unquestioningly believes in so many things, but when you tell her, to the face, that you don't believe in god she just can't believe it.

Such selective belief.
 
Indolent Wretch said:
Amazing isn't it how the lady in question so unquestioningly believes in so many things, but when you tell her, to the face, that you don't believe in god she just can't believe it.

Such selective belief.
Click to expand...

I have often observed this, though. Many communities hold atheists in such disregard that they are simply not mentioned, and any actual atheists keep their beliefs very private, for reasons of personal safety.

As a consequence, there are people who grow up without exposure to athests or atheism, and even as adults, the concept is new.

Most take some time trying to wrap their mind around it, and the most common misunderstanding is the belief that atheism is a sort of pagan faith that has a different idea about where souls go when we die.

Some of my peers have taken years to really grasp the idea that I don't believe in souls or things like that. It's hard for them to accept that I am not driven insane by the acceptance of ultimate mortality.
 
Godmode said:
I had a conversation...I'd like your thoughts on it (this is condensed, but the major points are here)

Her: cloning is wrong, because it's wrong to create a baby without a soul
Me: Why wouldn't a clone have a soul?
Her: A baby gets a soul when it's born, that is part of the birthpains mothers feel
Me:So, babies not born naturally wouldn't have a soul?
Her: Exactly
Me: What about if it's born by cesarean?
Her: Um, yeah, I'm not sure about that
Me: But you are sure that the majority of time a baby is in the womb it is souless?
Her: Yes
Me: So abortion is ok then?
Her: Uh, no, that's murder
Me: Would killing a clone be murder?
Her: I'm not sure
Me: I think maybe you need to reconsider your thoughts.
Her: I don't know why you're being so difficult, everyone knows deep inside that it's wrong to play god, they just don't admit it.
Me: I don't think it's possable to "play god" because I don't think that really means anything.
Her: Are you telling me honestly you don't believe in god?
Me: Yes, that's what I'm telling you
Her: I don't believe you
Me: Well there it is.
Click to expand...


Well, the other confusion here is that clones are born just like other people: they're intentional twins, basically.

There was this big kerfuffle thirty years ago with the introduction of IVF ("test-tube babies"). It's not an issue today.
 
Aepervius said:
I am off to go buy a kangaroo costume, and a few liter of purple colorant...
Click to expand...

Yeah, that'll fool me, NOT! You think I can't tell the difference between some guy in a kangaroo costume dyed purple and a real live jumping purple kangaroo? Well...I'm pretty sure I could...if I ever happen to bump into them...:boggled:

On a side note, I always thought that the 'sacrificing virgins' scheme of primitive cultures was just a way to get them to 'put out'. I pictured a village where all the virgins were running around, grabbing any man they see and pleading "(Rule 8) me!! (Rule 8) me!! I don't want to get chucked in the volcano!" Yeah, I'm one sick puppy.....:rolleyes:
 
Oolon Colluphid said:
Yeah, that'll fool me, NOT! You think I can't tell the difference between some guy in a kangaroo costume dyed purple and a real live jumping purple kangaroo? Well...I'm pretty sure I could...if I ever happen to bump into them...:boggled:
Click to expand...

Oi.
I am the high priest of the 'First Church of the Jumping Purple Kangaroo of north east Minnesota'.

So if ANYONE are too dress up as a Purple Kangaroo too aquire virgins it should be me :D
 
"soul"?

The question I have is: what exactly is meant by "soul"?

If it refers to that which distinguishes "mind" from "brain" I might be willing to admit that it exists. I think most folks posting in this thread have been thinking of the religious connotation.

If I examine my physical being, I can't really explain what it is about "me" that has the capacity to love, or to create (as a musician I find this a remarkable phenomenon), or to reason. If these things are all attributed to something called "soul" then I could be convinced to accept that such a thing might be real. However, I don't have any reason to believe that it was given to me by some all-powerful creator, or that it will live on after I perish, as many religions teach.

Anyone else have similar thoughts on the concept?
 
wtslim said:
If I examine my physical being, I can't really explain what it is about "me" that has the capacity to love, or to create (as a musician I find this a remarkable phenomenon), or to reason. If these things are all attributed to something called "soul" then I could be convinced to accept that such a thing might be real. However, I don't have any reason to believe that it was given to me by some all-powerful creator, or that it will live on after I perish, as many religions teach.
Click to expand...
Why not attribute them to your brain? Why do you need this soul thing at all?

~~ Paul
 
wtslim-
Abstract processes tend to be supported by (indeed created by) mechanical processes running "underneath". The beauty of a symphony is created by a whole lot of people sawing catgut over metal and banging pigskin with sticks. The elegant glide of the swan is due to paddling like hell beneath the surface. Like Paul, I think mind is a consequence of brain, pure and simple.
My own opinion is that the "X-factor" you describe is actually the result of a lot of hellishly complex processes going on in the brain. To those of a mystical bent it is "spirit "or "soul", to the more mechanist of us it is "mind" or "consciousness" . How one labels it is a matter of personal choice.

It's clear that some living things behave in ways very different from inert matter. To deny this is to be the deliberately blind stereotypical sceptic of bad TV fame. On the other hand, to embrace it as "spirit" or "soul" is to give up at the first hurdle. We need to understand how brains create minds. It's something to do with chemistry and we know how chemistry works. We'll get there.
 
Actually, its right after listening to Aretha Franklin sing "Respect." I have this on good authority.

glenn
 
Depending on who you talk to, we are either on the verge of creating artificial wombs, or nowhere near solving the problems of such.

If we do create artificial wombs, I assume couples with normal sperm and ova but some sort of problem with the uterus will be going to fertility clinics to get their babies set up in an artificial womb, just as IVF procedures are now widely used to help out people who have a glitch somewhere in the normal process. And if we ever do clone people, clones will probably gestated naturally, as CurtC points out.
 
Humphreys said:
I had a very similar discussion recently, actually.

It went like this:

Her: cloning is wrong, because it's wrong to create a baby without a soul
Me: ...
Me: *hits plonker on the head with a frying pan, repeatedly*
Click to expand...

:D Now why didn't I think of that? Oh that's right...there were witnesses.
 
Just a little thought on souls. I don't believe souls exist in the religious sense, ie something to go to heaven and hell or to come back and haunt people. But I guess I do sort of think of the soul as sentience, and in that respect I believe it. I do believe there is "something" that makes us more then animals, and that is basically self-awareness I guess.
But as far as debates with woos, I don't even bother explaining that, because they will jump on the word "soul" and twist it to what they want it to mean.
 
Godmode said:
Just a little thought on souls. I don't believe souls exist in the religious sense, ie something to go to heaven and hell or to come back and haunt people. But I guess I do sort of think of the soul as sentience, and in that respect I believe it. I do believe there is "something" that makes us more then animals, and that is basically self-awareness I guess.
But as far as debates with woos, I don't even bother explaining that, because they will jump on the word "soul" and twist it to what they want it to mean.
Click to expand...

Aquinas proposed a "tripartite" soul: a vegetable soul (plants grow toward light, water, &c), an animal soul (animals seem to have the ability to learn, remember, make decisions, show loyalty and compassion), and a human soul (more intelligence, but the responsibility for moral decisions).

According to this theory, animals have animal+vegetable souls, and humans have all three.

He argued that these are introduced to a human fetus at the beginning of each trimester.

(one interesting side-effect of this was that the church was ambivalent about first and second trimester abortion for awhile, since there was no human soul involved - this came to an end when advocates of the homuncular principle eventually carried the day)
 
Dcdrac said:
An uncle of mine had a habit of painitng his sheep pink in winter it was quite a sight, at least it was real unlike the book of genesis and the rest of the rubbish that is the bible.
Click to expand...
Did he do this so he'd find them in the snow?
 
I think the best way to get serious discussion in a thread is to make a spelling mistake in the title.

That way, you've already got our sympathy... :oldroll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom