And it has every bit as much credibility as pixies, which is what I pointed out. Care to present evidence that it is anything more than a commonly used word for a fictional entity? I can't wait.Iacchus said:No, the reason why I brought this up was in an attempt to maintain consistency. Which, is one of the first things necessary in order establish credibility, don't you think?He asked why he should give any credibility to my definition?
Well, I'm afraid that's all I have to offer then, aside from his ability to see it for himself.Mercutio said:
Oleron
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
- Messages
- 940
The more I think about it, the more I believe that a belief in evolution is contradictory to the more progressive xian ID theory.
As I said before, I can sort of understand a fundie xian view, taking the bible literally. It is at least a fairly complete description of how we came to be here with our immortal souls.
The problem comes when xians try to reconcile the great strides made by scientific understading with their own views. A noble effort, I'm sure, but when taken to a logical extreme I think it starts to leak like a sieve.
I can only see this situation worsening as scientific discovery forces xians to dilute their beliefs further.
I don't mean this as a vote for returning to fundamentalism. After all, this problem was created in the first place by intelligent xians spotting the staggering inadequacy of the bible's explanation of events.
I mean that, in light of the emerging facts, perhaps these progressive xians should have made the decision to abandon xianity altogether?
There, I've said it. I could be wrong of course.
As I said before, I can sort of understand a fundie xian view, taking the bible literally. It is at least a fairly complete description of how we came to be here with our immortal souls.
The problem comes when xians try to reconcile the great strides made by scientific understading with their own views. A noble effort, I'm sure, but when taken to a logical extreme I think it starts to leak like a sieve.
I can only see this situation worsening as scientific discovery forces xians to dilute their beliefs further.
I don't mean this as a vote for returning to fundamentalism. After all, this problem was created in the first place by intelligent xians spotting the staggering inadequacy of the bible's explanation of events.
I mean that, in light of the emerging facts, perhaps these progressive xians should have made the decision to abandon xianity altogether?
There, I've said it. I could be wrong of course.
RamblingOnwards
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
- Messages
- 417
How about this one:
The soul is that factor which influences how strongly a synapse fires, and makes 'free will' something other than a convincing illusion. As a creature develops more synapses, the soul becomes larger and more complex. Ta da! Humans have real souls. Cats and dogs have lesser souls. Rocks don't have any.
(This was an intellectual exercise and should not be taken to imply that I necccesarily believe in the existence of a soul and/or free will)
The soul is that factor which influences how strongly a synapse fires, and makes 'free will' something other than a convincing illusion. As a creature develops more synapses, the soul becomes larger and more complex. Ta da! Humans have real souls. Cats and dogs have lesser souls. Rocks don't have any.
(This was an intellectual exercise and should not be taken to imply that I necccesarily believe in the existence of a soul and/or free will)
neutrino_cannon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Messages
- 2,574
Actually, the soul evolved at the same time as a number of other measures to ensure that women's lives would suck. I have on reliable authority that God hates women. In carefully crafting a species in which the females would have the crappiest possible existence, God came up with a number of fiendish ideas, including corsets and pumps (devices of such eldrich horror that they even cause discomfort to the more cultured males of the species, i.e. me). Sine Dubio, Deus Vult.
1 But the crafty Lord did not limit himself to mere devices to cause women's suffering, he actually placed ridiculous anatomical mistakes in the very flesh of women for the sole purpose of causing discomfort.
2 First off God ran the birth canal straight through the pelvis, and made birth the exclusive domain of women.
3 Alas, that did not cause enough pain to placate the good Lord, so in order to complicate matters further,
4God said unto the half-witted Pre-Adamites to stand on their hind legs so that they could see approaching leopards that tended to snatch the more physically frail women off in the night.
5 And there was great snickering in Heaven.
6 Still, the Lord's great misogyny was not assuaged, so the Lord contributed to the pain of women during childbirth, and to the frustration of humankind in general with his next curse.
7 And the lord said to the half-witted pre-Adamites
8"Go ye, and grow thy skull huge and thin, that they might split when whacked with a rock, and further that they might split a woman's narrow pelvis at birth!"
9 And there was much snickering in heaven, and God got out a case of cold ones.
10 And there was much domestic violence, and there was much pain of women, and this was pleasing unto the Lord.
11 Still, the great and irrational anger to women the Lord held was unquenched, and the Lord went unto his consultant Satan for ideas.
12 The Lord spake unto Satan the Consultant:
13 "Oh horned consulting one who art a ripoff of pan, how is it that I may cause further pain and gnashing of teeth among the women kind of the world?"
14 And Satan, casually reclining in his ergonomic chair replied to the Lord thus:
15: "Oh smiteful one, who art but a rip off of Zeus, there is joy enough to make a man suffer by your own hand, but there is art o make him suffer by his own. Give unto the stupid ones the capacity for religion, and they'll pretty much deal with giving themselves enough grief so you could take the days off and go golfing."
16 And the Lord did so, and gave all of the puny mortals who art the abused playthings of the Lord souls and religion, and henceforth they have adequately generated their own misery.
17 And the Lord spake unto Satan the Consultant:
18 "Thank you O horned consultant."
19 And Satan said "Pay me you cheap b*****d"
20 And at this the Lord was displeased, and told men evermore not to trust Satan the Consultant, who evermore is unemployed except in hell, which is where consultants go anyhow if they can't get good recommendations.
21 And the Lord saw that this was good, and went golfing.
1 But the crafty Lord did not limit himself to mere devices to cause women's suffering, he actually placed ridiculous anatomical mistakes in the very flesh of women for the sole purpose of causing discomfort.
2 First off God ran the birth canal straight through the pelvis, and made birth the exclusive domain of women.
3 Alas, that did not cause enough pain to placate the good Lord, so in order to complicate matters further,
4God said unto the half-witted Pre-Adamites to stand on their hind legs so that they could see approaching leopards that tended to snatch the more physically frail women off in the night.
5 And there was great snickering in Heaven.
6 Still, the Lord's great misogyny was not assuaged, so the Lord contributed to the pain of women during childbirth, and to the frustration of humankind in general with his next curse.
7 And the lord said to the half-witted pre-Adamites
8"Go ye, and grow thy skull huge and thin, that they might split when whacked with a rock, and further that they might split a woman's narrow pelvis at birth!"
9 And there was much snickering in heaven, and God got out a case of cold ones.
10 And there was much domestic violence, and there was much pain of women, and this was pleasing unto the Lord.
11 Still, the great and irrational anger to women the Lord held was unquenched, and the Lord went unto his consultant Satan for ideas.
12 The Lord spake unto Satan the Consultant:
13 "Oh horned consulting one who art a ripoff of pan, how is it that I may cause further pain and gnashing of teeth among the women kind of the world?"
14 And Satan, casually reclining in his ergonomic chair replied to the Lord thus:
15: "Oh smiteful one, who art but a rip off of Zeus, there is joy enough to make a man suffer by your own hand, but there is art o make him suffer by his own. Give unto the stupid ones the capacity for religion, and they'll pretty much deal with giving themselves enough grief so you could take the days off and go golfing."
16 And the Lord did so, and gave all of the puny mortals who art the abused playthings of the Lord souls and religion, and henceforth they have adequately generated their own misery.
17 And the Lord spake unto Satan the Consultant:
18 "Thank you O horned consultant."
19 And Satan said "Pay me you cheap b*****d"
20 And at this the Lord was displeased, and told men evermore not to trust Satan the Consultant, who evermore is unemployed except in hell, which is where consultants go anyhow if they can't get good recommendations.
21 And the Lord saw that this was good, and went golfing.
Neutrino...Don't forget that the Lord also instilled a tremendous chemical and emotional bond between the woman and her offspring so strong that she would do without to nurture that child. Oh yeah, then the Lord decreed that three out of every four children would die in infancy.
neutrino_cannon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Messages
- 2,574
jimmygun said:
That would be chapter 2, verses 12-18 after the Lord gets into the sandtrap and gets fed up with golf (it later turns out that Satan the Consultant invented the sport), so he goes back to tormenting humanity.
I've seen this argued...but none ever say how. Last I saw, synapses were physical, the soul is always assumed to be non-physical (only because there is no physical evidence for one, I suppose). So...how would it "influence" how strongly a synapse fires?RamblingOnwards said:
(I know it was not a theory you were defending--I just wanted to poke the appropriate hole in it before it developed a life of its own...)
RamblingOnwards
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
- Messages
- 417
I believe the standard answer amounts to:
"It just does. Isn't the mystery of life grand?"
or
"Those bits that look random? Aren't."
Yes, but what is an illusion without the illusionist?RamblingOnwards said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
How about this one:
The soul is that factor which influences how strongly a synapse fires, and makes 'free will' something other than a convincing illusion.[snip]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the concept of a 'synapse firing strongly' actually mean anything?
As I understand it a synapse either fires or does not, there is no 'partial firing'. The only thing (or so I am told) that determines what makes a neuron fire is the input it gets from other neurons, which can themselves only fire or not fire. (It's been a long time since I did any biology though)
Where is the soul supposed to fit into this? What is this 'strength' that the soul influences?
edited for spelling.
Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
How about this one:
The soul is that factor which influences how strongly a synapse fires, and makes 'free will' something other than a convincing illusion.[snip]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the concept of a 'synapse firing strongly' actually mean anything?
As I understand it a synapse either fires or does not, there is no 'partial firing'. The only thing (or so I am told) that determines what makes a neuron fire is the input it gets from other neurons, which can themselves only fire or not fire. (It's been a long time since I did any biology though)
Where is the soul supposed to fit into this? What is this 'strength' that the soul influences?
edited for spelling.
richardm
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 9,248
apollo13 said:
I seem to recall that you can get "Strong" or "Weak" synaptic strength. The synapse does indeed either fire or not fire, but some synapses fire more or less efficiently than others. Invoking a soul to explain this seems to be gilding the lily, rather.
crocodile deathroll
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2002
- Messages
- 620
Although admittedly I do lapse into using the word I now try to make a point of not using the word "soul" I now prefer to refer to it as the "self" or "consciousness" or "self awareness" and IMHO that emerged as a survival function. Self awareness gave an organism a survival advantage over an organism that was not self aware.
CDR
CDR
Lothian
should be banned
Not everyone has a soul. Originally no-one had a soul. Then a defect caused the first person to develop a soul. This was not like the soul as we know it today and it is now referred to as the A soul. This was passed down the genetic line until another defect created someone with the B soul. This process continued through time with the soul modifying until present day where we see lots of R souls.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
The concept of the soul is somewhat younger than religion, actually; and the idea of afterlife "punishment" is even younger still.
The earliest religions that we know about were polytheistic, featuring a pantheon of gods which controlled the natural world. It was only as these religions "advanced" - that is, only as some people sat down and actually devoted a lot of thought to the implications of what they believed - that people first came up with the idea of something that "survived" after death.
At first, the idea of a "consequential" afterlife did not involve "punishment". The afterlife was thought of as simply another life, with its own destiny and course. Later developed the idea that how good you were in life determined how good your afterlife would be; and even then, there was no "eternal" punishment for being bad. In ancient Egypt, for example, if you hadn't behaved "good enough" in life, your "soul" would be thrown to a monster and devoured, and you would just cease to exist - out like a snuffed candle. Other religions of the time, such as classic Greece, featured an afterlife in which everyone, no matter how good or bad, simply walked around sulking about not living anymore. The basic train of thought went thusly - some of the gods were also "bad" personalities as well, and even "evil" people could come into favor with at least some of the gods; naturally, then, those gods would see to at least a tolerable afterlife.
It wasn't really until monotheism showed up that the idea of eternal punishment became really popular. Logically, a single deity would be of one mindset, and he would either show you favor or he wouldn't. And since he controlled the afterlife, if he didn't favor you there was nothing left to save you.
The earliest religions that we know about were polytheistic, featuring a pantheon of gods which controlled the natural world. It was only as these religions "advanced" - that is, only as some people sat down and actually devoted a lot of thought to the implications of what they believed - that people first came up with the idea of something that "survived" after death.
At first, the idea of a "consequential" afterlife did not involve "punishment". The afterlife was thought of as simply another life, with its own destiny and course. Later developed the idea that how good you were in life determined how good your afterlife would be; and even then, there was no "eternal" punishment for being bad. In ancient Egypt, for example, if you hadn't behaved "good enough" in life, your "soul" would be thrown to a monster and devoured, and you would just cease to exist - out like a snuffed candle. Other religions of the time, such as classic Greece, featured an afterlife in which everyone, no matter how good or bad, simply walked around sulking about not living anymore. The basic train of thought went thusly - some of the gods were also "bad" personalities as well, and even "evil" people could come into favor with at least some of the gods; naturally, then, those gods would see to at least a tolerable afterlife.
It wasn't really until monotheism showed up that the idea of eternal punishment became really popular. Logically, a single deity would be of one mindset, and he would either show you favor or he wouldn't. And since he controlled the afterlife, if he didn't favor you there was nothing left to save you.
crocodile deathroll
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2002
- Messages
- 620
Joshua Korosi said:
Yeah! I think that is the rationale behind many people's fear of death today, even amongst many who are not religious at all.
CDR