And Nothing Heard My Scream

[Jeff Corkern]

OK, that other thread is scary. I thought the original story was meant to be satirical towards woo-believers, but this guys is 100% serious.

Yup, 100%.

If people don't have an eternal soul, we are all worthless and it's ok for us to do whatever we want as long as we don't get caught. It's a false dichotomy where morality only exists to protect our immortal soul. No soul = no morality. What a crock.

BINGO! Finally, somebody understands!

Bjb, man, you have made my day. You see what I'm saying with that story!

There really ARE some critical thinkers in here!

Bjb, man, I am applying the scientific process to human behavior.

In precisely the same sense that analysis of particles in motion leads to Newton's Equations, analysis of human behavior leads to the existence of immortal souls.

If rocks roll downhill, it can only be because gravity exists.

You think it's a crock? Why? State your reasons, please.

I would be more than happy to discuss this with you, if you will agree to one rule.

I will extend to you the courtesy of an open mind, intellectual honesty, and I will expect you to do the same.

OK?

[/QUOTE]I still say the story has merit, but for being an example of the garbage some people honestly believe. Thanks to Jeff for a look into his twisted mind. The lesson for the rest of us is that he is not alone in his beliefs.[/QUOTE]

You are quite correct, bjb. "Michael Stone" lives and breathes, walks and talks. I have met and seen "Michael Stone", more than once. I used to work in a community of scientists. Some of the things I saw there are part of what generated Michael.

I am not "Michael Stone." But I do understand Michael, thoroughly, why he is the way he is.

 

[chocolatepossum]

To state it in abstract theoretical terms, without an immortal soul, Michael's emotional state is NOT PHYSICALLY LINKED to anyone else's emotional state.

This is assuming that Michael does not give a rat's arse about anyone else's emotional state. If he was a human being then the chances are that he would care, at least to some extent . People who do not care are what are called, I believe, sociopaths. They do go round killing people if it suits them, but normal people don't, by and large, because we have the ability to empathise and sympathise with others.

Are you seriously saying you would be a mass murderer/mugger if you knew you could get away with it and that you had no soul?

Why is it more rational to not care about others than to care about others?

Edited to add: IF you only cared about yourself, and your sole aim in life was the accumulation of, say, money, then if person A had money, and if you knew you could kill and rob them without risking any negative consequences, THEN it would be rational to kill and rob them.

 

[Roboramma]

If you don't have a soul, you blink right out and disappear, and the guy who shot you goes off fat and HAPPY.

What makes you believe that? There are a lot of people who wouldn't find joy in killing someone else. And you've given (neither in this thread nor the other) no reason why they should be happy about killing other people.
Let me make this explicit. Our brains are wired a certain way. How this wiring comes about isn't important here. What is important is that because of the way our brains work, we want certain things.
That's it. You can't call those desires (like the desire for happiness, or the desire to be a good person) rational or irrational.
They're just what we want.

To say that the only thing that matters to anyone is their own happiness is not only wrong, but demonstrably so. And because your entire argument is built on that assumption, it falls on it as well.

No bad consequences to him. HE WILL ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS, and that makes what he's done rational.

Basically this says, people without an immortal soul should live their lives they way they want to live them. Well, duh.
Guess what, some of us actually don't want to be sociopaths. Some of us don't aspire to kill everyone around us, and some of us don't sit back thinking, damn, I wish I could kill this guy, if only his dead clan-brothers wouldn't kill me in the afterlife (an old goblin curse, sorry).

You're going to be a bit, ahem, STEAMED about getting shot in the back. Right?

Maybe, that depends on what happens after. For all I know I end up in paradise, in which case I'll be quite grateful to the guy.

Even if nobody else ever finds out, YOU KNOW. And somewhere, somehow, you're going to find that jerk and MAKE HIM PAY.

Or, during the years after my death, and before his, I might just forget all about it. After all, it's not like he really killed me, is it? I'm still around, fine, maybe even liking the change of scenery. Why would I hold an eternal grudge about that?

If you have an immortal soul, THAT JERK WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS. You're not about to let that happen.

This assumes quite a lot:
1. That everyone will hold a grudge that they'll spend as much time as necessary to avenge.
2. That souls are capable of doing each other injury. For all I know non-corporeal souls can't affect each other at all.
3. That my soul and his end up in the same place.
3. b) that I'm able to find his soul.
4. That if and when I do find his soul I'll have the power to do him harm - maybe some souls are stronger than others. In which case, if your soul is stronger, why not be a bully (under your logic)?

This is the primary effect of immortal souls. YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS.

As I pointed out above, that's not a necessary conclusion.

If people have souls, the assumption that YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS willl be deeply buried in their society.

Well, no. If people have souls. And if they know it. And if they also know that their souls will have the opportunity for vengence. And if they also think that everyone will want to carry out that vengence. And if they have enough forsight to care about such vengence (people do discount the future, you know).

Now, let me ask you this, how many people really beleive that they cannot escape the consequences of their actions?
There are plenty of people who cheat lie and take advantage of others. Why do they do this, under your system?
It makes complete sense under my view of the world. People want certain things, but different people want different things. Their desire to be "good people" differs from person to person. As do the chances of being caught at what they're doing.
Under your system, everyone should be the same, because they all have the same reason not to want to hurt each other, and the same chances of being found out if they do.

---Are there any TV shows that revolve around the assumption that you cannot escape the consequences of your actions?

---Are there any societal institutions that revolve around this assumption?

--Do you know of any incidents in your own life where somebody was not allowed to get away with what he had done wrong, even after many years?

Anything else?

Huh? Wait, you're saying that because people believe in reciprocity now they obviously believe that there are immortal souls which will also carry out reciprocity?
That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

If you don't have a soul, you blink right out and disappear, and the guy who shot you goes off fat and HAPPY. No bad consequences to him. HE WILL ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS, and that makes what he's done rational.

Once again, you seem to be completely ignoring two very obvious points:

If we all have that attitude, then there is just as good of a chance of someone shooting him in the back and walking off with his money. As such, as a society, we have all agreed to not shoot each other in the back and take each other's money, and to punish those who we catch doing the same. Please readand consider the next sentence: All moral considerations aside, we all agree to certain social norms and laws because it is in everybody's best interest to have a stable society. For that reason it is not rational for people to run around and shoot each other in the back. People do not exist in a vacume.

The other point is that you have not shown that having an immortal soul means that someone is inevitably going to be punished for anything. You have not shown how one soul could make another soul pay for their crimes. Your definition of a soul in your other thread did not address that at all. If a soul inherently cannot be destroyed, then how exactly would one soul make another soul pay? If a soul doesn't have a body, I would assume it can't feel physical pain. Presumably as disembodied souls, we don't have physical possessions like cars, houses, money, etc. for another soul to confiscate. What exactly is entailed in "making someone pay" in the afterlife?

You are making gigantic assumptions and leaps in logic here to arrive at your conclusions.

 

[Roboramma]

And by the way Jeff, even if your argument did make sense, all you'd have shown regarding the existence of souls would be that people believe they exist.

Well, a poll would probably tell you that, and far more reliably than your twisted logic and failed premises.

 

[Jeff Corkern]

Jeff, I agree that society does try to make you believe that your actions will have consequences.

Thank you for that much.

no sociopath has done anything to my love ones.

I am happy for that, too.

I am trying to stop them from ever doing so.

hailslaanesh, you guys are going around trying to convince society souls don't exist.

If you guys ever succeed at that, you won't like what happens next, you really, seriously won't. "Michael Stone" will just come crawling out of the walls, he really will.

For the sake of your kids, you might consider my arguments.

The choice of whether or not they are correct is entirely yours, of course. But you might consider them.

The fact that you think the lack of a soul means you have to be a sociopath, is proof that you are an angry young person more than anything. Been there, done that.

That story really made an impact, didn't it?
I am not an angry young person. Although I wish that last part was wrong.
I am not Michael Stone. But I have met Michael Stone, I surely have. That's why I was able to write him like that.

 

[Gr8wight]

Wait. I very firmly believe that there is no God, and that I do not have an immortal soul. Yet, I do not behave like your Two dimensional caricature "Michael Stone." Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Nex]

...BINGO! Finally, somebody understands!...

Hate to break it to you, but it wasn't all that complex. It's a commonly made fallacy. Nothing special or unique.

 

[Jeff Corkern]

Surely if I have an immortal soul, that cannot be destroyed by any means, that would be incentive to do whatever I liked without fear of any consequence. If I can't be killed, why worry about societal norms and laws?/QUOTE]

Because the people you killed also have immortal souls too, AND ARE GOING TO COME AFTER YOU FOR KILLING THEM.

You made THEM unhappy----now they're going to make YOU unhappy.

Make sense?

 

[Gr8wight]

Surely if I have an immortal soul, that cannot be destroyed by any means, that would be incentive to do whatever I liked without fear of any consequence. If I can't be killed, why worry about societal norms and laws?

Because the people you killed also have immortal souls too, AND ARE GOING TO COME AFTER YOU FOR KILLING THEM.

You made THEM unhappy----now they're going to make YOU unhappy.

Make sense?

You are a very confused young man.

 

[LostAngeles]

Only a sociopath with no soul would make such a well-done and obvious language award bid!

I walked across the page in a fog of dense, confusing prose. Run-on sentences and trite metaphors pounded my face like a luke-warm spoon. I picked my way through the rocks of twisted and spurious logic, looking for one that was strong enough to support an argument. More awkwardly-structured sentences were only a paragraph break away.

I was alone, as I always had been. Maybe if I didn't kill everybody I met -- but, no. Mustn't blame myself. The gun is my friend. The only friend I need.

I came across a dark form, a stranger rendered faceless by the author's lack of skill in characterization. "Hello," he said. "Who are you?"

"I am Jake Nonsequitur, the illogical serial killer. Are you the Easter Bunny? Have you brought me candy?"

"Alas, no. I am the First Straw Man, and I must tell you that there is no Easter Bunny."

"No Easter Bunny? If there's no Easter Bunny, then no one will bring me candy. And if I can't have candy, the only rational thing is to become a diabetic." And so I shot him.

"Wait, why did you shoot me?" he asked, as bits of straw floated through the air.

"I told you I was a serial killer."

"You're right. It was foolish of me to keep talking to you like that. But here," he reached into his pocket and handed me a small bottle. "If you're diabetic now, you'll need this insulin."

Then an alligator ate him. I forget what the alligators represent, but I'm sure they're important.

I walked on, and soon met another stranger, no more interesting than the first. "I am the Second Straw Man," he said.

"And I am Jake Nonsequitur, the illogical diabetic serial killer."

"That's nice. Oh, did you know there's no such thing as Santa Claus?"

"No such thing as Santa Claus? But then I won't get any Christmas presents. And if I can't have any Christmas presents, the only rational thing is to become Jewish." And so I shot him, too.

"Wait, before I'm eaten by alligators, you'll need this." As he died, he handed me a dreidl. Then he was eaten by alligators.

I walked on, and -- what are the odds? -- I met another mysterious, undescribed stranger. "I am the Ghost of Christmas Past," he began.

"Wrong story", I whispered.

"Oh, sorry. I am the Third Straw Man."

"Pleased to meet you. I'm Jake Nonsequitur, the illogical diabetic Jewish serial killer."

"If I tell you something, will you promise not to kill me?"

"Okay."

"Cool. Polygraph machines don't really show if you're lying or not."

"Really? But if lie detectors don't work, the only rational thing is to become a pathological liar." So I shot him.

"No fair! You became a pathological liar *after* you promised not to shoot me."

"Yeah, but I was already a serial killer and I'm kind of on a roll right now." And then an alligator ate him.

As I walked on, I thought that maybe instead of being eaten by alligators, the straw men should be carried away by flying monkeys, but I was too lazy to go back and change it. I was so wrapped up in my thoughts of alligators and flying monkeys that I almost bumped into the next mysterious stranger.

"Oops," I said. "Sorry. I'm Jake Nonsequitur, the illogical diabetic Jewish pathological liar and serial killer. You must be the Fourth Straw Man."

"I am."

"What can you tell me that will make me want to kill you?"

"Anything at all, apparently."

"Come on, be a sport. Tell me something doesn't exist."

"Okay, ... um, there's no such thing as leprechauns."

"But if there are no leprechauns, then there's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. And if there's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, that means rainbows are a lie. Since rainbows are a lie, the only rational thing is to become a homophobe." So I called him a queer and then I shot him.

Alligators or flying monkeys or something took the body away and I walked on until I met my next victim. You guessed it, another mysterious stranger.

"I am Jake Nonsequitur, the illogical homophobic diabetic Jewish pathological liar and serial killer. Are you the Fifth Straw Man?"

"I am."

"And are you going to tell me that something doesn't exist?"

"I am."

"Well, get with it. This is a message board post, not a Stephen King novel."

"Very well. There's no such thing as Bigfoot."

I was stumped. "Bigfoot ... Bigfoot. If Bigfoot doesn't exist, then ... um. Then the Six Million Dollar Man -- no, that's no good."

The Fifth Straw Man smirked at me. "Well? What's the 'only rational thing' to do if there's no Bigfoot?"

"Give me a minute here. It's not easy being an illogical homophobic diabetic Jewish pathological liar and serial killer, having to constantly redefine your lifestyle and personality every time you learn something doesn't exist."

"Can I go, then?"

"No. I think I still get to kill you." And so I shot him. But as I picked him up to throw him in the river, I noticed something odd. There were five bullet holes in his straw body. I'd been killing the same straw man, over and over, all night long!

I did the only rational thing. I quit being an illogical homophobic diabetic Jewish pathological liar and serial killer, and became a Presbyterian dentist with an allergy to string beans.

 

[hailslaanesh]

Fear of eternal retribution is not enough alone to make sociopaths behave. I understand your point but I don't think educating the rest of society so they know there are no souls will cause any more sociopaths.

If, as you say, they are worried about retribution they can still get enough of it in their lifetime after committing crimes.

 

[Jeff Corkern]

The person I mentioned above happens to believe (or so I’ve been to) that he is the hands of God. This suggests to me that a person can be a sociopath and still believe in God. And, if that is the case, then that pretty much blows that short story out of the water.

C'mon, man, read the story. There's not a word in there about believing in God, or anything that even suggests the concept.

I empathize with your sociopath story. I've been on the other end, too, but I didn't have it as bad as you did.

It's quite a stunning thing, isn't it, to be treated as NOTHING.

 

[LotusMegami]

This shows why religion is important in society.

I don't need the threat of hell to keep them in line, because I'm a good person. I have heard many Christians say that if they did not fear hell, they would have no conscience and no moral compulsions whatsoever.

I believe that true morality can only exist without the threat of punishment. Doing the right thing out of fear doesn't make you a good person - but your actions are still right. Religion can protect good people from those who don't actually place any value on human life - people filled with hate.

The problem is that people who are full of hate will believe in a God who is full of hate. That's how we get suicide bombers. So I guess religion is a dangerous tool. It can control people, but what they believe is right might have no connection to what rational, ethical people believe is right.

If killing a good person sends that person to heaven, then killing is a good thing. Likewise a person who deserves hell deserves to die. So kill them all. God will know his own.

Damn. If I ever become dictator I will have a serious dilemma on my hands.
I can't just outlaw religion, because so many fundy woos are actually sociopaths. If they believe God wants them to kill, they will. Because human life has no value when you believe in an afterlife.

You can't kill something that won't die.

On the other hand, I would want to let the smart ones be free of religion.
They can contribute more to science and learning that way.

Maybe I could just teach the children to value human life for its own sake. If I were dictator, after all, I could prevent whackjobs from creating other whackjobs.

People who respond to this post will be considered as advisors. Even dictators have to delegate responsibilities.

 

[Jeff Corkern]

Once again, you seem to be completely ignoring two very obvious points:

If we all have that attitude, then there is just as good of a chance of someone shooting him in the back and walking off with his money.

Yup. You're starting to understand.

As such, as a society, we have all agreed to not shoot each other in the back and take each other's money, and to punish those who we catch doing the same.

So we have. The question is why.

Please readand consider the next sentence: All moral considerations aside, we all agree to certain social norms and laws because it is in everybody's best interest to have a stable society.

Done.

Sure. We all want to have a stable society.

The question is, what does it take to GUARANTEE that society is stable.

That is one of the points of my story. Souls are absolutely critical for the existence of society, because souls absolutely guarantee that stability. Without souls, society is not stable, because that makes being a sociopath---somebody who lacks a feeling of connection to everybody else---rational.

Now you don't have to agree with that, but that was the idea.

The other point is that you have not shown that having an immortal soul means that someone is inevitably going to be punished for anything. You have not shown how one soul could make another soul pay for their crimes. Your definition of a soul in your other thread did not address that at all. If a soul inherently cannot be destroyed, then how exactly would one soul make another soul pay? If a soul doesn't have a body, I would assume it can't feel physical pain. Presumably as disembodied souls, we don't have physical possessions like cars, houses, money, etc. for another soul to confiscate. What exactly is entailed in "making someone pay" in the afterlife?

This is an excellent question. What's the PRECISE mechanism of payment?

And the answer is: I don't know. All I can say is that, if you're an immortal soul in the afterlife who got there by being shot in the back, you will be bound and determined to find a way to make that jerk who shot you pay.

I don't know the rules for the afterlife.

You are making gigantic assumptions and leaps in logic here to arrive at your conclusions.

It's entirely your call, your own judgement to make.

Now I disagree. I think my arguments are based entirely on reason and logic.

But this is a critical-thinker's forum----supposed to be anyway, despite all the name-calling---so reason and logic are what it's all about.

So you get to make that call for yourself.

Sorry I can't reply to everybody's post, but my time is severely limited by work and other things. I tried to hit all the major points.

 

[Rasmus]

Because the people you killed also have immortal souls too, AND ARE GOING TO COME AFTER YOU FOR KILLING THEM.

Again: No, why should they?

Will they be re-born? If yes, I didn't really deprive them of much; just a little part of a life that will be just lilke many other lifes they lived and will live. The loss of a single life ceases to be tragic if i can have as many as I like.

Was it my only life? GRanted, I might be a bit bummed. But for how long? That would depend on the quality of my after-life. I might win something, lose something or stay pretty much the same compared to my life now. Suppose I win: Why should I waste time in my after-life to seek revenge of the person that got me to a good place sooner? Maybe I might wait for that poor soul that killed me and sincerely thank them?

You made THEM unhappy----now they're going to make YOU unhappy.

How utterly, utterly primitive.

I guess this is where I could repeat the questions others have posed wrt to the exact rules that these eternal souls follow?

How could the soul of those that I killed make my soul miserable? Will they caume and haunt me whilst I live? wait until I die and the nget back at me? What does revenge look like in the afterlife? Will your soul tie my soul#s shoelaces together for the next 500 years or what?

Make sense?

No.

Rasmus.

 

[hailslaanesh]

Damn. If I ever become dictator I will have a serious dilemma on my hands.
I can't just outlaw religion, because so many fundy woos are actually sociopaths. If they believe God wants them to kill, they will. Because human life has no value when you believe in an afterlife.

Well I don't know about being a dictator because you could do some really bad things. But maybe I could be a televangelist (sp?) and make some money off people who will really feel better once they give it to me. Let's face it, if I don't do it, some other scam artist will. It would be a great way to get rich, but damn, I would get sick of being around so many dumb people.

No, mental note: we are here to educate people against the scam artists, not to learn how to scam the silly buggers ourselves.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The question is, what does it take to GUARANTEE that society is stable.

That is one of the points of my story. Souls are absolutely critical for the existence of society, because souls absolutely guarantee that stability. Without souls, society is not stable, because that makes being a sociopath---somebody who lacks a feeling of connection to everybody else---rational.

Now you don't have to agree with that, but that was the idea.

I understand your idea. Basically, you seem to be arguing that without souls, there will be complete chaos because everyone will be sociopaths who will be concerned only with themselves and will therefore feel no qualms about killing other people. And therefore, stability is only guarenteed if people have (or believe they have) souls.

What I am saying is that your argument is false. You are introducing the concept of a soul as a necessity for stability when that need has not been substaniated. People do not need a soul to want to live in a society where they don't have to be afraid of being shot and robbed. Stability and order, in and of themselves, are rational concepts. Moreover, you are begging the question by saying that being a sociopath is rational. You have not shown that. Stability is a rastional desire, and acting toward social stability is also perfectly rational. Being a sociopath -- and thus acting in a way that creates instability and chaos -- is irrational.

And this leads to your notion that having a soul will GUARENTEE stability. Why? In spite of stability being a rational desire, many people do things to cause chaos. It is rational to stay out of prison, but people do things to end up in prison. It is rational to not fly an airplane into a building but people do that. Oh, and those were people who believed very strongly that they have souls. So even if people believed they had souls, and even if other people could dole out revenge in the afterlife against them, what makes you think that is a guarentee that they would always do the rational thing and not hurt anyone? There are plenty of people in the world who not only believe they have souls, but who even believe that they will go to an eternal hell if they do certain things. Yet some of those very people have done the things that they believe would send them to hell. People do not always act rationally, soul or not. Having a soul guarentees nothing.

Bottom line: real world experience simply does not support your idea that having a soul would guarantee that people would not do bad things, or that not having a soul means people will run around shooting each other.

And the answer is: I don't know. All I can say is that, if you're an immortal soul in the afterlife who got there by being shot in the back, you will be bound and determined to find a way to make that jerk who shot you pay.

I don't know the rules for the afterlife.

This seems an odd thing to say since you recently defined a soul and what would happen in the afterlife to people who were wronged on Earth. If a soul cannot be hurt, then your entire argument is out the window.

Now I disagree. I think my arguments are based entirely on reason and logic.

But this is a critical-thinker's forum----supposed to be anyway, despite all the name-calling---so reason and logic are what it's all about.

So you get to make that call for yourself.

I'm trying to avoid name calling, but I will call a spade a spade. Your theory begs the question on a number of points.

 

[Jess]

Jeff seems to believe in that a mechanism called the "soul" enables humans to make moral decisions. Without this soul, humans would do heinously evil things. Soulless individuals (according to Jeff's bit of creative writing) seem to do evil things because they no longer fear punishment. Jeff's soulless individuals still seem to retain the ability to think, since he hasn't depicted "Michael Stone" as a gibbering idiot, only as a murderous psychopath.

How can you truly consider yourself a moral person if you believe that some portion of you, separate from thought, dictates right from wrong? Is your soul out for repairs on days you make bad choices and do bad things? Are you truly a moral person if the only reason you don't go out and murder someone is because your soul induces a fear of jail? Do people who do bad things not have souls? Can they be held accountable for what they do if they don't? Can they be held accountable for what they do if they do have one?

Basically, Jeff has argued that the existence of souls eliminates the possibility of free will. I can't bring myself to believe that.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Sure. We all want to have a stable society.

The question is, what does it take to GUARANTEE that society is stable.

The fact that we all want it to be stable.

Sheesh.