I like how Lolo is simply dismissing Polycarp and heading right for Mayor Quimby, who could be taking the Troll-bait! Watch out Mayor! Lolo is on of Fat Tony’s thugs!
before I respond, I’d like to share with you all a sig which I found particularly amusing.
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you’re still retarded.
hardily har har har!
I digress…
what’s left to debate?
Who here is going to change their mind b/c of a point Lolo made?
anyone? anyone?
But why then, you would ask, are you here, Lolo?
Isn’t that the question we’d all like an answer too?
**
Poly, you’re such a nice man. Don’t you think this statement, “at least the ones who realize what their instructions really are,” is a bit pretentious?
Who are you to know?
at once they claim not to know what he knows but then they claim to know what he wants… and they still call him he.
**
Here is where we disagree. You feel as though my flippant attitude lacks credibility.
My position does not lack credibility.
My position is an abondonment of invitation.
Why bother to cite and pine over the details only to reach the ineffable point, “I believe b/c I ahd an experience.”?
Is that not the end of this debate?
Will you admit with me no proof exists, reason laughs in God’s faith, and circumstance suggests otherwise?
perhaps, perhaps not. But you will agree that your faith is solid, and no one will ever change your mind.
**
our disparity in worldview is immeasurable. Defining our differences will resolve to the penultimate concurrence, “Don’t fuck my wife, don’t steal my shit.”
(pardon my french)
**
I ma discussing it. In a matter unpretentious, lackadaisical, and equally effective as any previous attempt ever made; insomuch as no one here is going to change their mind.
God creates everything.
Every soulfull entity spends it’s life killing or being killed.
I’m sorry, Poly, but it doesn’t work for me.
also, I’ve been reasonable, just without unwarranted concession.
Hypotheses :[list=1]
[li]There is no such thing as God, There is no such thing as a soul.[/li][li]Although there is no such thing as God, there are such things as souls, but they are eternal, so they don’t require a creator.[/li][li]The universe was created in pretty much it’s present state at some point in the past; evolution is a small part of the picture and not relevant to the question of souls. Souls are created by God[/li][li]God created the universe in a primitive state and allowed it to develop, possibly intervening along the way, when creatures capable of knowing him arose, he gave them souls.[/li][li]God may or may not exist and may or may not have created the universe, but souls come into existence/develop as some sort of natural consequence of sentience.[/li][sup](That one is my favourite so far; souls would then be sort of like indelible marks that we make on the fabric of spacetime by the mere fact that we are able to observe and know it)[/sup]
[li]The concept of individual souls is erroneous; all living things (possibly non-living things too) are infused by or posess parts/aspects of some sort of universal soul.[/li][li]erm… any more?[/li][/list=1]
I never sed I cood spel
- Souls aren’t born with you, but earned over time through the trials of life, suffering, thought, and prayer. or something like that. it was on the Simpsons.
see you kids tomorrow
Hi Lolo, taking the OP as GQ instead of GD (cool, how many abbrvs can one get in a short sentence…) I think we’d be forced to fall back on “Well… it depends”.
Not terribly useful perhaps, but then the OP is so open as to allow any answer, no?
“In the Cartesian theory animals are mere automata”
(The Catholic Encyclopedia has an interesting article on the soul, including an historical perspective).
Even if we limit ourselves to Christianity, which seems (at least IMHO) to be your major focus, then the answer is still : it depends on who and when.
IIRC, one of the accomplishments of the Jesuits back in the 15th-16thC (no cite I’m afraid, at work, no books…) was to successfully argure that the natives of the New World had souls and thus could be converted and saved, rather than being soul-less animals.
I believe the standard operations manual for Christians is a matter of public record. 
A personal favourite of mine:
Mathhew 6:5-6 (KJV)
5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Perhaps they were washing their dirty underwear in the river and burning their big dino corpses, polluting the air. Perhaps dinosaurs were more advanced than we think. Anyone know how long it takes a pair of underwear to decompose? I’d wager that we’ll never know that much about dinosaurs, save for their bone structure.
Would you care to explain how religion collapses upon itself? As long as people believe in something, it has little chance of collapsing.
So did you. It’s repetEtive.
I know you are, but what am I?
Wow, Lolo said something funny!
Oh, no! I agree with Polycarp on something. For the first time ever. I’m going straight to hell.
See
Animal Intelligence and Suffering, http://www.faithreason.org/farmaint.htm
and The First Saved Man on Earth, http://www.faithreason.org/farmfsm.htm
at
Faith & Reason Ministries, http://www.faithreason.org/
I like how people get ahead of themselves when trying to make a point b/c they’ve generalized and preconceived.
hugs and kisses and best of wishes.
[Main Entry: re·pet·i·tive
Pronunciation: ri-'pe-t&-tiv
Function: adjective
Date: 1839
1 : containing repetition
2 : REPETITIOUS
- re·pet·i·tive·ly adverb
- re·pet·i·tive·ness noun](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
try again.
I’m rubber and you’re glue.
Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.
I’m always funny. You hear me? laugh, motherfucker! laugh!
This quote does not suggest a devout, “in-the-closet Christian” (hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa), will be bestowed with direct knowledge of God’s knowledge; only that “thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”
And, furthermore, being as the bible is book open to interpretation, those quotes could mean anything to anyone. Moreover, if God is the same God to all, what edge does Christianity have over any other other religion?
none.
I have a question. Do you really think people see your arguments the same way you describe them? ‘Unpretentious’ – not humble, unsophisticated maybe. ‘Lackadaisical’ – certainly not lighthearted, but perhaps lazy, especially when it comes to proof-reading. ‘Equally as effective as any previous attempt ever made’ – I’m going to go out on a limb and say probably not. I have seen innumerable arguments from both sides of the debate that are better thought out, more eloquently stated, and indeed more effective then yours. If you really want to discuss religion, try to have a bit more respect for those you are discussing it with and perhaps spend more time framing your arguments.
Whether gifted with a soul or not, God would not have required a moral code of non-sentient creatures. An animal possessing a soul does not equate to bible reading dogs or cats attending mass. All it would mean is that their life has value beyond the physical world. It’s silly to think you could do any real damage to a theist belief system by setting up a sophomoric trap using the false dichotomy of god-worshipping vs. soulless animals. Rather than puerile traps, try to make arguments on a more adult level. Your current transparent tactics may have gone over well with the study hall crew, but they don’t hold up under scrutiny.
If I were undecided on the subject of religion upon encountering this thread, I’d weight your arguments against, for example polycarp, and I’d be headed to church right now. That is hardly “as effective as any previous attempt ever made.”
Enough with the Jesus stuff. ENOUGH!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lolo *
**
Ooh! Ooh! I can!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lolo *
**
When people try to educate you on what some of the great philosophers said on this very subject, you hear “pops and buzzes”. Because you either have no ability or no desire to turn this white noise into meaningful information on which you may form an opinion, YOUR OPINION IS NOT AN INFORMED ONE.
Using the merriam-webster defintion Main Entry: pre·ten·tious
a : making usually unjustified or excessive claims (as of value or standing)
i.e., I am not pretending to understand the supposed desires of a supposed God, based either on “personal experience” coupled with “ancient text” or “personal experience” gratis ad hoc.
Unsophisticated? If by sophistication you mean placation, then yes, I am unsophisticated.
**
Lighthearted I am. You seem to be getting upset. Me, I’m frolicking through the daises with a popsical in one hand and a naked playmate in the other.
**
So you’ve seen a conversion?
Hmm?
I’m going to go out on a limb and say probably not. (which if you think about it really isn’t going out on a limb since I didn’t really make a concrete statement. But thanks for the idea.)
So, since no one here has made a conversion and I have not either, we are equally as effective in our methods.
If I may quote about half of the believers, “being here has only made my faith stronger.”
If anything, those who have been here have not only failed to convert but failed so miserably as to make the other side more affirmed in their convictions.
Oh, we’re all a bunch of failures! Unless, of course, we all have different motivations.
**
See the above.
**
and you’ve talked to God about this?
also, what animals do you know are non-sentient?
**
You’ve missed the point. All human cultures posses some form of religion. No other animal cultures do. What does this suggest?
**
It’s silly to think you could do any real damage to an atheist belief system.
Your current transparent tactics may have gone over well with the usual doper crew, but they don’t hold up under my genius scrutiny.
**
you wouldn’t be here.
My opinion is informed. My mind is aware.
My statement “pops and buzzes” was general. I’ll be more specific. The philosophy of of the human soul is a great failure. It is baseless, pretentious, and useless save equanimity regardless of duration.
Man is not good. Man does not have a soul. Man is a simple animal with plenty of time on his hands.
His every tool is of his own design. What man creates is his and his alone.
Of course I’ve seen conversion. Why would you presume I have not? I’ve seen those without faith gain it; and I’ve seen people question their religion and find that it does not hold up under the scrutiny. More importantly I’ve seen intelligent discourse by a member from one end of the spectrum make a profound impact on a member from the other end of the spectrum. Not a conversion, but a well made point considered and accepted. That is my motivation – to engage in intelligent, though not necessarily serious discussion. What is yours?
Unfortunately God and I don’t talk much, but I’m unaware of any religious text, including the bible, specifying that animals must worship. Head down to olivetree.com and find exactly where it says that God requires a moral code of animals. As far as the sentience of animals, I’m pretty certain that annelids are not sentient. Perhaps you could prove to me that they are. In fact the only animals for whom I’ve even seen a case for sentience made are higher mammals, most especially chimps. You’re missing the point, there is no reason outside of your fantasy world to equate worship of God with evidence of a soul, nor would the presence or absence of a soul in any animal prove or deny the existence of God. It you want to play scientist, use measurable criteria when playing this particular game.
I believe I’ve told you in the past that I’m not a theist, so in case you forgot consider this a reminder. I’m not here because I’m a believer, nor would I try to discredit a non-theist belief system. Don’t presume to tell me what I believe or what my purpose is. I’ve told you my motivation, kindly share yours or keep quiet on the subject.
“genius scrutiny”? Sweet funky Jesus in a tie-dye and bellbottoms. Do yourself a favor and retract your self-assessed genius status and let your arguments, such as they are, speak for themselves.
Admins: Please could you make available the completely new kind of smiley I need to respond to this one.