To me it’s interesting that so many people can’t concieve of the mind, or soul, simply not existing after death, yet have no problem with that same mind/soul not existing before birth/conception.
I gotta admit, I didn’t expect that answer.
How about a virus - does it have a soul? How about a prion?
But the criteria would have the same justification as the claim that we have souls: none. It would be totally arbitrary. You say ‘more than 8 cells is human’ (its got human DNA) or ‘If he can tell shit from shinola he’s human’ (it’s not human until it’s intelligence is proven). To use your example, the fetus is also forming new neural connections at a greater rate than any adult human. Or pretty much any non-fetus.
Again, it’s just as arbitrary as the ‘human or not’ criteria. Different cultures have different criteria for the things you named. Some people won’t even kill flies, just because they’re alive (Jains?). Some people won’t kill cows no matter what, because they’re holy. Some cultures hold differnt kinds of humans at different levels, even the male and female gender at different levels. Roll the dice and pick one, it’s all relative.
No, Atoms etc. and all that make up existence; as an example: If you burn a paper it’s properties take on a different form,it no longer exists as paper. Our human properties are a passed on thing just as life is a passed on thing from parents to child,some things become a gas etc. even inanimate things contains atoms etc.
Monavis
No I do not believe the soul is any different than life, to me they are the same thing, If soul was different than life then in my opinion one could not lose a soul.as many believe it can be lost. If a virus is alive it would have life, to me that is soul. A dead body is lifeless. The slow process of decay takes it back into the place where all plants etc. came. Existing in a different state of being.
Monavis
It seems to me if I used your definition, my computer would have a soul while it’s running but not have a sould while it’s turned off.
Well, if we’re going to function as a society, we need to have some criterion for deciding which entities have rights which must be respected, and which entities have lesser rights, or none at all. It is probably inevitable that this criterion will be at least somewhat arbitrary, but it’s not completely arbitrary, and some criteria are certainly better than others. We could use the criterion “Anyone should be allowed to kill anyone or anything they want”, but that way lies chaos. So that’s a bad criterion. We could also use the criterion “Nobody should kill any living thing at all”, but that way lies starvation. That’s a bad criterion, too. The task of responsible citizens who wish to live in a society is then to try to figure out the best criteria we can.
That’s true. But that criteria should be determined using facts and reality, not faith. Belief in the supernatural should not enter into such an important decision.
Throughout history, the criteria most used by humans to determined who can be killed/enslaved/treated badly was ‘us and them’. Humans still think this way today. My country and your country. My religion and your religion. My team and your team. All the way down to me and you. Each group has a different idea of what they want on their pizza, much less what criteria to use for allocating life and death. Groups like Christianity, and to avoid sweeping generalizations, certain groups within Christianity, demand that their ideas be used over others ideas, using only belief as justification. Until we can get past the ‘us vs them’ mentality, making decisions like this are going to be difficult at best.
How many souls can dance on a pinhead ?
If one does not know for sure that ‘souls’ exist, then such discussions are a waste of time.
Posit something unverifiable, then use it as a premise for some pretty far reaching conclusions - a good recipe for religious wars.
This is a quite sensible direction of discussion you are taking. By which I mean, of course, very unlike the unresolvable, nonsensical discussion about what has souls and what doesn’t.
I propose that computer keys have tiny souls that are destroyed and then replaced by new souls every time you type, making this entire thread a litany of evil deeds. You can amass the greatest theologians in history to argue for or against my claim, or for or against any claims of their own about souls, and all will be equally useless and non-instructive.
Define pinhead.
oh wait, never mind.
I do not think a computer has a soul, it is an inaminate thing. Different than what a live entity has.
When a person say’s someone or thing is dead it means the life is no longer there, the body is now inanimate.
I cannot understand if life or soul leaves the body,how it is any different. If the body has the ability to destroy the soul, but the soul is able to live on (and in some cases) people report that they saw a dead person, then the soul would take on the image of the person that had died. It’s life would then live on. Does it mean that life has a soul, or does soul have a life?
Monavis
There are many things that exist but are not alive,such as a rock,metal etc. so how can life be Existence, it can be in existence but not Existance it self.
Monavis