well what I though about that, JulzM, we are organic machines, but i just wondered the Soul concept, im not sure if it exists or not, but... i think when i brought that soul and cyborg thing was to compare that they are no different from us, and they dont believe i a GOD for certainly ,thus i think believing in Souls is one step closer to Faith and Religion And GOD Phenomena LOL. Sorry i dont know if im explaining correctly.

by they way i just find out your face on the facebook topic... its always interesting to know who we talk to.

Yeah, it is good to know who we're talking to Feel free to add me if you want.

With the "cyborg" idea, if they are no different to us, then surely some of them would believe in souls as well?

I think that you're right -- the belief in a soul and the belief in some sort of God(s) are closely related. Buddhism is an exception to most large religions, which teaches we have no souls, that we are strictly the products of cause and effect, and that there are not necessarily any gods -- Buddha himself was agnostic or atheist, depending on how you define those terms. No soul, no necessity for a God.

As I'm sure you've guessed, I do believe we each have a soul. Certainly a soulless machine can be tricked into thinking it has a soul on the basis that it thinks of itself as one being. But what I experience, and what I'm sure everyone else experiences, must surely be different from simply the cumulative effects of physical causes.

Jibb

You've missed the point... again. Whether you like it or not, your religion is directly related or even down right responsible for a lot of wrong-doing in this world. That was my argument and you're indeed acting as if your Protestant version of Christianity changes that entirely. It doesn't.



Can you prove God is not limited by weight and mass? Heck no!

If you'd follow the logic of simple cause-event chains, you should realize God would very likely have to be limited by weight and mass in some way for it to be able to influence it.

"Is God limited by weight or mass? No."

That's really just another one of those billions of claims religious people make about their God all the time. The actual conceptual definition of God is a pure figment of human imagination.

I really don't agree that "spaghetti too green for God to eat" is a good analogy to the "stone to heavy to lift, even for God". It's about the almightiness, not God's taste which would be a mere choice anyway.

I shouldn't have to explain this as it's overly obvious... but.. Aren't you the one who believes God is able to influence all things with it's almightiness? And even (potentially) create? Well if it can create and both influence things with it's almightiness without any limits as is often said, then one would assume it can A. create a stone too heavy to lift for God and B. that would then instantly conflict with the common assumption that God in it's almightiness would be able to lift anything, everything and always, without limits as well.

I know either one of those has to be false, but that's not the point. It does however clearly show how an argument without evidence backing it up, is pretty much irrelevant altogether. Saying God is not disproved by science (or even possible to be disproved by science), hence he must exists, is equally as stupid as saying God doesn't have to be proven by facts, as all you need for it to 'exist' is faith.

Apparently you're having a hard time to grasp the logic and sense behind all of this. I'm not attacking you here, it makes sense as you're convinced of your belief and that's why you look at that in an entirely different way.



You see, this is why I called you ignorant before when it comes to Christianity throughout the world. Reality check; organized religion defines the content of the Bible or the interpretation of the texts. There's a whole lot in the Bible that still justifies plenty of very outdated ideas.

It's too easy to hide behind the idea that you or your local religious community interprets the Bible differently and therefore beliefs it doesn't justify what happens elsewhere.

In most if not all cases religious people just interpret the Biblical texts however they see fit.



Specific to a distinct subset of Christians? Yeah, right. You're just pretending wrong-doing in name of Christianity in whatever way doesn't happen anywhere near you.

I'm not evangelizing atheism at all, I'm attacking deism, in particular organized Christianity, but really also religion in general. When it comes to my own world view I'm really much more agnostic and somewhat of a pantheist actually. As said many times on this forum, I tend to go with what we do know, facts and knowledge. Yes, however relative. But not blind faith and the usual ignorant sheep behavior.



No not at all the same. You're saying I can not think of rock music as bad, because there's also a special kind of rock within the main genre that according to you is so great and wonderful that I can not think of rock music as bad. Thát's what's up here. And I obviously do not agree with that.

In fact, to stretch the analogy a bit further and explain my view; I am sort of arguing here that the main rock music genre is bad by definition, because it always comes with guitar riffs in it and screamy vocals.

I'll try and keep this short.
I have not missed the point. I never denied the history behind it. But people are responsible for those things. Not my religion. If someone kills in the name of PHeMoX it's probably not your fault. If someone kills in the name of money, or love (as is often the case), it's not the fault of money or love. Perhaps you can say otherwise if texts that are particularly important to a religion condone or encourage such actions, but they don't!
If you want to take this discussion seriously, please don't just skim over what I've written and fill in the gaps with your imagination. I was very clear that I'm not arguing that he must exist. I'm saying you have no grounds to say he cannot exist.I was not saying the spaghetti tastes bad -- colour has nothing to do with taste. That's the point. Weight has nothing to do with God's ability to lift it, as he isn't a physical being under the restrictions of physical laws (that's logical, not only from the idea that he creates something out of nothing, but also the idea that he was the first cause, and is thus not bound by the constraints of cause and effect).
Organisations as a whole have defined history for as long as history has been recorded. Like I said before, the reliability of current Bible translations can be discussed elsewhere. Neither of us have enough understanding of the Greek of New Testament times to discuss this point. However, in some denominations it is a requirement for Ministers to learn to read the Ancient Hebrew and Greek languages used in the oldest manuscripts of the Old and New Testament. As much as it is arguable that we perhaps don't have access to the letters and books of the New Testament as they were when they were written, I'm sure it isn't hard to believe that modern translations are consistent enough with the Bible as it was during the crusades."Local" is too strong a word -- my family are from South Africa, and I've moved around Australia, Fiji, and now live in Canada where I've been to two different churches so far. And again, I have never attempted to justify wrong-doings done in God's name, Christianity's name, or even by Christian organizations.
Again, doing something on behalf of another system doesn't make that system culpable. I have no issue with your problems with "organised religion", but your vision of Christianity is skewed by (yes, I say it again) a specific subset of Christianity. I don't care how much you scoff at such a description. Such a reaction is indicative of how little you are actually considering what I'm saying. Even that specific subset, which has many things I disagree with, is not responsible for these bad things: it's the weaknesses of the system (a monarchic system with a human head; a system which places too much power over people in the hands of a few -- a weakness that we specifically moved away from during the Reformation).
Again, don't put words in my mouth, please. I'm not saying you can't have a dislike for something, but to say authoritatively that it is all bad when you don't understand of significant parts of it is wrong. Admittedly, I was vague with my analogy.

Jibb

thas exaclty were i wanted to bring you because.. now how do answer this:

The star sea, when broken in pieces, they give another being equal to the initial, which they move and live again, and now what? where they got that soul from..? weird isn't it? Thats why i think soul is like a weird thing I just can't say if exists or not

That's an interesting question. I've wondered something along those lines -- apparently an earthworm can survive once it has been cut in half -- both halves live on separately. When do they become different earthworms?? This is probably why the concept of a "soul" is often connected with a belief in a higher power or a supernatural element -- something higher than the physical world, perhaps with one who has authority to create and distribute such "souls" as He/She/It wills. Apparently in history some have described certain body parts as housing the soul.

The Bible describes us as having dominion over the Earth and its animals, and having a unique breath of life. Thus many Christians (as well as Jews, and I think Muslims, who have similar origins) believe animals (like seastars and so on) don't have souls -- really just organic machines.

Jibb

I have not read the bible, and I do not plan to, so I ask; Does the bible specifically state organic beings, humans in special, have a physical soul? Or could this soul very well be a non-physical collective description for things like character, preferences, emotions and mentality?

The New Testament describes death of the body and death of the soul as two different things; that the people of this world can kill your body, but not your soul: only God has the power to do that. I'm sure this is more than just the memory of our "character". But quite frankly the concept of a "soul" in the Bible is something I take for granted, and can't recall more precise details without looking into it

Jibb

By all means, go look it up! You'd be surprised.

The soul in the bible is often simply the equivalent of 'life' embodied in living creatures. In the earlier usage of the Old Testament it has no reference to the later philosophical meaning of something of an immaterial nature which will survive the body.

The immortal soul concept in modern-day Christianity obviously came from ancient Greek philosophy and it's therefore pretty unbiblical. Lots of scholars agree and admit this, heck go through church history and you'll find someone called Saint Augustine who's largely responsible for the change of how 'souls' are interpreted.

There's often times a huge difference between popular theology and what can be found in the scriptural teachings.

But if animals have souls and we are animais, and then we have too, monkey too , cause we are all animalia Class... why Humans always want to be the best, the most powerful.. we are bodies like everything else.. i think sould is just.. a Canal from the body, to a controller, outthere... it must be that!

Thats why Aliens said , This is a vessel and they are not afraid of die, since souls can jump from vessel to vessel, death is not the end.

What most terrifies me, is that my memories will fade away, since they are made in my neurons ( i think thats were they are) and my personality will all gone, what i had learn, everything.. so if i re-incarnate later, I wont remember my past, and i will never know, that i have had lived before..