Did dinosaurs have souls?

[Lolo]

*Originally posted by Waverly *
Of course I’ve seen conversion. Why would you presume I have not?

On the boards?

You’ve seen a conversion on a message board?

please give me the handle. This is very interesting.

**

That is my motivation – to engage in intelligent, though not necessarily serious discussion. What is yours?**

intelligent, though not necessarily serious discussion.

**

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.**

Sure, I’ll head down to an internet site to talk to GOD.

Hmm, that makes so much sense. I should’ve realized that god was both an a site-host and a Christian.

I could’ve sworn he was an impoverished Hindu without internet access.

Thanks a bunch, though. I guess I didn’t realize the myopic Christian mindset was the correct mindset. Not that you’re a Chrsitian.

**

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. **

What about cats and dogs? what about lions? Lions are definitely sentient. Lions kill viciously kill animals every day. Does this seem God-like to you?

Actually, scratch that. Humans kill humans every day. Humans kill animals every day. Are you a vegetarian? I’m willing to say most christians are not vegetarian. Hence, most Christians kill other sentient animals. What does this suggest to you? (and I’m only saying this b/c you sent me to a Christian website)

**

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.**

You can’t measure a soul. It exists, supposedly, outside the physical realm.

**

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.**

intelligent, though not necessarily serious discussion

**

“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. **

have you no appreciation for humor?

Who thought I was serious with the “genius scrutiny” line?

seriously, you folks need to lighten up.

[Tars_Tarkas]

*Originally posted by Lolo *
Lions are definitely sentient.

What are you, drunk? Please. You sadden me.
I’ll pray for you!

[Lolo]

*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas *
**

*Originally posted by Lolo *
Lions are definitely sentient.

What are you, drunk? Please. You sadden me.
I’ll pray for you! **

A lion will consciously make the effort to commit infanticide.

It is aware/conscious the cubs of his new mate are not his. He will kill them in order to ensure his offsping survival.

**Main Entry: sen·tient
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-sh(E-)&nt, 'sen-tE-&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel
Date: 1632
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : AWARE
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

• sen·tient·ly adverb **

by the first defintion, the lion is conscious and responsive to his senses.
by the second he is aware the cubs aren’t his.
by the third he is aware of when and how to approach the lioness to mate.

a lion is sentient.

what you know now foo?

[Tars_Tarkas]

The male lion kills the cubs because without cubs, the females go into estrus, and he can get his groove thing on. Taking care of cubs that are not his own wastes resources. Animals that waste resources don’t live to make new animals. its called EVOLUTION.

1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions

All living things experience sense impressions, its how they respond to stimuli!

2: AWARE

What are you defining as aware? recognizing your face in a mirror? developing a language? fighing your instincts and doing the oposite of them because rationaly you know it is best? A lion can only do the first.

3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

so when i put gloves on and lose some feeling in my hands, do i become less sentient? i got computer equipment that can detect minute amounts of chemicals. does that make the machine sentient? is it self-aware? will it cause a machine uprising on the likes of Terminator?

please! go back to your hole!

[Polycarp]

I know there are serious warnings posted about this, but there’s enough of the little boy in me to be fascinated by what lives under the bridges…

No, I do not think I am being egotistical in reading a series of instructions on how to behave and believing it to apply to me. If I can do that to the TOS here, I certainly can do it with, admittedly a bit more abstractly phrased, rules in four First Century treatises.

Conversion experiences? I take it you expect Jack Chick-style “I’ve seen the light” stuff? In that case, no way.

Something involving a bit more rationality but spiritually based too? I know of two cases, one a former poster and one a current one, where intelligent discussions and, more effectually, people living out what they believe, did change the view of two people who had been agnostic and became theists, one a UUist and the other not having stated his position, except that he was “open to seeing a religious view.”

I think it is quite possible to talk rationally about the myths and legends of Scripture, and still to see God at work through them. In the event that you ever get to the point where you’re interested in intelligent debate, Lolo, I think you have the patience and wittiness to be a good debater.

“Religion collapses of itself”? Naah. Doctrines that are unsupportable by logic require faith to uphold them. Faith is not illogical – it’s non-logical. And the evidence of everything that this board, founded in strict skeptical empiricism (paging Hume!), subscribes to as legitimate evidence is nonetheless subject to Cartesian doubt. (The only person I’ve ever run into who had a satisfactory debunking of that premise is presently a truck driver, and was 13 at the time he came up with the refutation.)

Jersey, we agree on far more than we disagree on, if you look back over threads we’ve both been part of. It’s merely what appears to be your conviction that Jerry Falwell’s view of the world is the one and the only one ordained by Christ that has caused any disagreements between us. (That’s not an accusation, it’s an inference from your past remarks. And nobody will be happier than me to find out you think otherwise.)

[Lolo]

*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas *
The male lion kills the cubs because without cubs, the females go into estrus, and he can get his groove thing on. Taking care of cubs that are not his own wastes resources. Animals that waste resources don’t live to make new animals. its called EVOLUTION.

and how does this make the lion non-sentient?
**

1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions

All living things experience sense impressions, its how they respond to stimuli!**

I know! Many beings are sentient! Humans aren’t special! You don’t need to use exclamation points!

**

2: AWARE

What are you defining as aware? recognizing your face in a mirror? developing a language? fighing your instincts and doing the oposite of them because rationaly you know it is best? A lion can only do the first.**

Hmm? Lion’s don’t have language? I’ve seen lion’s communicate perfectly well. They might not speak English or Spanish, but they do communicate.

What exactly is rationally best, Tars?

Moreover, let us not confuse “sentient” with “capable of abstract thought.” k?

**

3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

so when i put gloves on and lose some feeling in my hands, do i become less sentient? i got computer equipment that can detect minute amounts of chemicals. does that make the machine sentient? is it self-aware? will it cause a machine uprising on the likes of Terminator?

please! go back to your hole! **

so when you make analogies supporting an entirely different POV, is it a waste of time?

please! stop using so many exclamation points!

Human capability is in no way indicative of being the product of divine creation.

[Ferrous]

Originally posted by mangetout

*Originally posted by Lolo *
…my genius scrutiny…

Admins: Please could you make available the completely new kind of smiley I need to respond to this one.

Would that be the one of a person trying to laugh hilariously and projectile vomit at the same time? Kind of hard to pull off…

[Lolo]

Originally posted by Polycarp *
**
No, I do not think I am being egotistical in reading a series of instructions on how to behave and believing it to apply to me. If I can do that to the TOS here, I certainly can do it with, admittedly a bit more abstractly phrased, rules in four First Century treatises.*

But to believe these instructions are divine, Polycarp; this is where I take issue.

**

Conversion experiences? I take it you expect Jack Chick-style “I’ve seen the light” stuff? In that case, no way.

Something involving a bit more rationality but spiritually based too? I know of two cases, one a former poster and one a current one, where intelligent discussions and, more effectually, people living out what they believe, did change the view of two people who had been agnostic and became theists, one a UUist and the other not having stated his position, except that he was “open to seeing a religious view.”**

wowza! perhaps the first documented cases in message boards history. I must say, however, my stress on the “never going to convert” pertained more to atheists and theists, as compared to agnostic and/or “open.”

**

I think it is quite possible to talk rationally about the myths and legends of Scripture, and still to see God at work through them. In the event that you ever get to the point where you’re interested in intelligent debate, Lolo, I think you have the patience and wittiness to be a good debater.**

thank you.
I cannot, however, reconcile myth with anything but a supposed God, not a actual God. I see the mythological progressionm as indicative of a much flawed and impatient attempt by man to answer what he does not know.

**

“Religion collapses of itself”? Naah. Doctrines that are unsupportable by logic require faith to uphold them. Faith is not illogical – it’s non-logical. And the evidence of everything that this board, founded in strict skeptical empiricism (paging Hume!), subscribes to as legitimate evidence is nonetheless subject to Cartesian doubt. (The only person I’ve ever run into who had a satisfactory debunking of that premise is presently a truck driver, and was 13 at the time he came up with the refutation.)**

By comparison, should not one religion be right and the others wrong? if so, religion then collapses.

or do you wish to assert something to the effect, “religion is simply a cultural interpretation of God’s will”?

[Gaudere]

[Moderator Hat ON]

I am flexing my Super Mod-powers and locking this out of sheer disgust. Fercryinoutunprintably, Lolo, learn how to actually make an argument, read people’s posts and respond to them. I don’t think I’ve seen a more pathetic series of “arguments” in my life. This is Gauddamned Great Debates, not “Spew Random Nonsequiters, Barely-Tangentally-Linked Comments and Pre-School Level Sniping.” I have never been so close to recommending banning someone simply based on the combination of sheer refusal to summon up a decent argument and dogged insistence on continuing to natter on anyhow. Blech!

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Edited by Gaudere on 11-06-2001 at 03:19 PM]