Having heard variations on this theme my whole life from my devout relatives, what the religious person said comes off as being more than a little morally narcissistic. The implication is that one is a soulless creature, and there's NEVER a positive spin on that approbation. It implies that one is either deranged, under the spell of a demon or otherwise incompetent at best, and at worst, it's dehumanizing.

After all, what would a religious extremist find morally wrong with persecuting a soulless creature, or even killing one for being an affront to his Divinity?

Note this quote on the Jewish concept of a 'golem':




-Kerry O.

Nope

Yup

Men have souls like forests have leprechauns and sprites all a bunch of cute stuff to help you sleep at night.

Uh-huh

Read your Bible and use your Strong's Concordance with dictionaries.0

I have. That's why I'm an atheist.

I've read those publications and IMHO they give truly lame excuses, definitions, and so-called 'explanations'.

What they do is begin with premises that everyone who is familar with those stories knows to be "true" within the confines of those stories, and then they go on to try to justify various interpretations based on those "premises" which are already a farce to begin with by they treat as the "gospel truth".

For example, they will often begin by stating that it's obvious that mankind has fallen from grace and that all men are in need of redemption. Yeah right!

Of course, if a reader falls for that, then it's pretty easy to sell them a bridge to the next fallacy.

The problem with sticking with those brainwashing manuals is that this is precisely what they are. As soon as you take your head out of that blind spot and actually look around at what mankind has actually discovered about the universe we live in you will then begin to realize that almost all of the premises that the Bible is built upon are necessarily false.

So sticking with those books as your sole source of information is to ignore the reality around you.

The fact of the matter is that it's now crystal clear by the scientific observations of fossil records, genetics, geology, physics, chemistry, and even astrophysics that the premises demanded by the folklore contained in the Bible is necessarily false.

The Biblical story claims that it was mankind's fall from grace that brought imperfections and death into the world. Well, that's totally false. So this whole story has been shown to be based on a false premise from square one. The whole story of Adam and Eve is necessarily a farce.

Supporting it via some silly "Strong Concordance" is indeed silly because all that publication does is attempt to support the story by defining terms in ways that appear to support the whole mythology. And of course they are going to be extremely BIASED in their definitions because they wrote the dictionary specifically for the purpose of SUPPORTING this mythological story.

So turning to the Strong's Concordance for "help" understanding the Bible is to simply accept someone else's interpretations of things. A book that was specifically PUBLISHED for that PURPOSE I might add.

And they most CERTAINLY aren't about to point out the contradictions and obvious FALLACIES. So these are entirely ONE-SIDED publications purposefully BIASED to support the story at all cost. No matter how silly or absurd the story might get.

Truly! It's the most ignorant story I ever read in my life, IMHO.

Of course, that doesn't lead me to "athesim". Just because the Hebrews were a bunch of male-chauvinistic pigs who claimed to speak for some jealous Zeus-like egotistic godhead, doesn't mean that there can't be a mystical, or spiritual nature, to our existence (which may indeed include some form of a "god" (or possible "gods" in plural). In fact, we may actually be gods like Jesus supposedly said. But then again, I personally believe that Jesus was a Buddhist and was actually speaking from the Eastern Mystic perspective.

In any case, I'm not about to even give the Bible as much credit as you do. You seem to be giving it an "all-or-nothing" status. In other words, either there is a God (in which case it must be the God of the Bible), or if that God isn't real, then there must not be any God whatsoever!

I don't even give the Bible that much clout. We dismissed Zeus as nothing more than mythology, yet we didn't give that myth an "all-or-nothing" status. Most people went on to worshiping the next myth (i.e. the Biblical myth).

I still believe there may be something to Eastern Mysticsm. And I'm not about to allow the Hebrew's story of a jealous egotistical God to negate the possiblity that Easter Mysticism being true. Why give those utterly ignorant Hewbrews that much power over me?

I just dismiss their folklore as nothing more than a reflection of their own egotistical arrogance.

I didn't give it an "all or nothing", but actually reading the bible is a contributing factor in my journey to atheism.
It was the realization that all the major religions are just a bunch of BS. (Plus it's a little hard to believe the "one true god" line when all these religions are fractured into little sub-religions.)
My love of Science also helped me down the road to atheism.
Both factors lead me to where I am now, without a need for any type of religion. Especially those that in one way or another try to control my life.

My love of science has ultimately and always been a love of the universe, and of intellect, (or conscious cognition). I think I love the mind more than anything. Although, without a cool universe to apply it to, a mind would be quite a waste.

In any case, having been a scientist my entire life, there has never been a time when I felt that science either pointed to atheism, nor even remotely implied it. On the contrary, everything that I know about science actually supports mysticism as far as I can see.



Well, I can certainly understand how religions can play a role in driving people to atheism. Religions, especially the Abrahamic religions are the most arrogant and egotistical crap that mankind ever invented. In fact, if our creator were truly like how those religions describe I could not worship our creator, on the contary, I would feel extremely sorry for it. As far as I can see those religions make "God" out to be seriously pathetic and petty.

I guess in truth, I don't care for "religion" either. I prefer pure spirituality, not "organized religions". As soon as someone puts on a funny hat and starts acting like he or she speaks for God then all bets are off. That's when spirituality dies and "religion" becomes nothing more than the arrogant opinions of men.

And I agree, atheism is actually more attractive than the Abrahamic religions. I'd rather there be no god at all then to find out that our creator truly is as ignorant and insane as the biblical stories demand.

Well, considering most can't really describe what a soul is, but people assume everyone has it, perhaps soul and consciousness mean essentially the same thing? They always have to me. Thus, even raised as an atheist, I believe we, and other life forms on this planet have a soul/consciousness/awareness, even if it is a matter of being reabsorbed back into the planet, or energy field upon death.

Your answer proves you have not read the Strong's and have put forth a falsehood.

That sounds very reasonable to me. Were you surprised, then, to hear people suggest that non-humans don't have souls? Or that clones might not have souls?

REMEMBER THIS! I YOU BELIEVE A SHEEP'S TAIL IS A FOOT....THE SHEEP STILL HAS ONLY FOUR FEET....NOT FIVE.

Surprised? No. That seems to be a characteristic of humans to randomly deem other soulless. That was one excuse for slavery. Heck, I've even heard that recently by a local white supremacist, KKK guy here in town.

I do find it insulting and rather sad that we do that to other species, plants and animals, with out truly knowing one way or another, but I chalk it up to the excuse to exploit, pillage and kill everything, so to take away their souls makes it easier to screw them all over. It would be the same for complete clones. If we negate the possibility that they have souls, we can do whatever we want to them.

Well than your definition is relative. Use the term consciousness instead of soul, because to my understanding they are two completely different things.

And to me, your definition is relative. My understandings fall into similar wording throughout.

We'd have to agree to disagree.

Like EquusDancer I would need to disagree with "your understanding".

In fact, what exactly is your "understanding" of consciousness?

What is consciousness? Science certainly doesn't have a definitive answer on that one. Sure, they can cite "Brain Activity" as a superficial definition of "consciousness" but we can quickly see how useless that defintion is when we see people who are "unconscious" yet their brain is still active in a physical sense.

The bottom line for "consciousness" is that of "perception" or "awarness". But from a scientific point of view that becomes an extremely ellusive concept. What is is that is perceiving?

The brain? What is the brain? A bunch of atoms arranged into molecules that form neural pathways? That still doesn't answer the question of precisely what it is that is actually PERCEIVING this experience.

For many people (especially the Eastern Mystics) there can be no distinction between consciousness and soul, because it is indeed the soul that is perceiving consciousness. (not the brain) The brain is simply an arrangement of atoms. To suggest that the brain is perceiving anything is to suggest that atoms can perceive.

This is indeed the MYSTERY. This is also where I part company with atheists who tend to take a so-called "Scientific" view of things. I disagree that science has even remotely address the question of how a neural network can actually preceive anything. What is doing the perceiving? The neural network itself? Sorry but that makes no sense to me, nor does it make any sense to many philosophers including the Easter Mystics.

So when you say that to your "understanding" soul and consciousness are two compeltely seperate things, what exactly do you mean?

Are you suggesting that you actaully "understand" consciousness? If so, could you please explain your understanding of this concept?

Also, if you're going to start talking about "Emergent Properties", please save your breath. I've thought about that concept quite deeply and find it to have no intrinsic value. To even claim that an ability to perceive is an "emergent property", still does not answer the question because what would then be the object that is perceiving? The emergent property itself? That makes no sense at all to me. An emergy "property" can perceive? That would imply that an Emergent Property is something OTHER than merely an emergent property. That idea simply doesn't fall into the category of what I would call "understanding". Because I personally can't understand how an emergent property could "perceive" anything. The whole idea is nothing more than an abstract concept to begin with. So the idea reduced to saying, "An abstract concept is what does the perceiving in a conscious being"

That just isn't a satsifying explanation for me on any level, neither philosophical, nor even scientific actually.

This is why the Eastern Mystics have gained my respect. They've considered these ideas long before modern science ever came up with them. They've consider every imaginable scenario and finally concluded that there can be only one answer that truly makes sense. And that answer is quite simple. Something else must be going on that defies our logic. In other words, mysticism is truly the only conclusion that makes any sense. No matter how you cut it, the world, and especially consciouness, is indeed a mystery. For even a neural net to actually PERCEIVE, would take a "Miracle". (i.e. be a mystery that cannot be explained in logical terms)

Just sharing my views here Charlie, as food for thought. Not meant to sound confrontational.

But seriously, how to you define "Consciouness" and "Soul" to be so confident about them being completely different things?

If consciousness is a mystery, and soul is a mystery, then they're both in the same boat are they not?