Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Darth Crater]

Homestar

Yes I do have my own interpretation of the Bible, and I base my beliefs on that interpretation. That doesn't make me wrong, in your eyes it might, but your not the law around here, and neither is popular opinion. I get to chose how to interpret things for myself, and I get to base my beliefs on said interpretations.

I'm not disputing any of the above. All of it is valid. What I am disputing are your claims that the Bible is "scientifically sound", "100% accurately prophetic", and "without contradictions". These are unrelated to, and in fact contradicted by, the above. They have all been demonstrated to be false within this thread.

One more, probably futile attempt to get you to realize this: Suppose Deuteronomy 22:22, instead of saying "If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel," said "Sleeping with someone is bad if you or they are married to someone else, and you don't have permission. It makes the one(s) being "cheated on" unhappy. Don't do it." Pick a better wording if you prefer. This would have exactly the same value in guiding us today, without inspiring fundamentalists to unjustly kill people. Better, even, since it's not restricted to a man and a married woman. I've just provided something that's a strict improvement over the Bible. Thus, the Bible cannot be perfect.

Souls

Ah, do humans have a soul. That's a very good question. I'm leaning toward yes, I'm completely convinced we can prove we have one scientifically someday. There are so many things we don't understand yet that it would be irresponsible to decide so early when there isn't proof that we don't have souls. I think Duncan MacDougall had the right idea but his methods were horrible and his results were damn inconsistent I don't trust his finding despite the fact that it would support my claim. So basically my answer is I don't know if we have souls or not.

Careful - "we have no proof we don't have souls" does imply "we should not rule out that we have souls", but not "we should believe we have souls".

I believe in reincarnation, so the "existence" of a soul is an open and shut case for me. No, I can't prove it, and I have no intention of trying. The only "evidence" I have is purely anecdotal and so divorced from anything that can be fundamentally proved that it barely bears mentioning, but there have been times where i've felt much, much older than I have any right to. I'm not talking about "oh man i'm so much more ~adult~ than my peers" or anything, but just a crushing sense of age.

As you say, I can't really consider a subjective experience as strong evidence. However - since reincarnation requires a soul, shouldn't you need to believe in a soul first, not the other way around?

Here's what I think about the matter. For most definitions of "soul" as something spiritual, apart from, or distinguishable from the body, I don't believe they exist. Everything I've seen about human behavior seems to be explained by the brain or the body. Thoughts and memories are electronic and chemical processes. Evidence for this is the correlation of damage in the brain and changes in the thoughts/personality. Also, the ability of hormones and drugs to function properly and alter behavior. In a computer metaphor, our conscious mind is basically one program running on the hardwired OS of the body. I would certainly like to have a "true form" less destructible than a body, but I don't see evidence for it. This implies a couple of things for my philosophy:
-If somebody dies ("death" here defined as degradation of the brain to non-function, not a stopped heart or anything similarly reversible), they are gone. They've stopped existing. No ghosts, no afterlife, no messages from beyond, nothing. Doing this to someone without their consent is the worst possible thing you can do to them.
-This life is all we have. Everything we do should be aimed at maximizing our own and others' happiness within it. That implies, as long as we're happier to exist than not to exist, that we should prolong our lives as much as possible.
-We are fundamentally changeable. If our brains are computers, we can reprogram them. If our bodies are hardware, we can upgrade them. We can, given the technology, become whatever we want. We can stop aging. We can ignore pain. We can become spaceships. Our ability to change ourselves and the universe is limited only by physical laws and our understanding.

So, I suppose the questions I should be asking are:
-First, and most importantly, do you see any holes or inconsistencies in my beliefs as stated above?
-What do you think the soul actually does? In other words, how do you define "soul"?
-Given that definition, what causes you to think that we have souls? How do you think we can detect them or their influence?

Sin

By "sin" I didn't mean "things that are bad". Everyone and every culture has things they believe are bad. I meant the concept of "sin" in religion, but honestly I can't think of a good wording to define it and most of them rely on "soul" somewhere anyway. Maybe it's similar to "karma" which I understand as "a record of good or bad things you have done, which will later be repaid in kind"? Both of you seem to agree that "what things are bad" is subjective. Do you think there's actually any concrete, defined "thing" that is sin? Or is it just a word used to describe "things that are bad"?

Wulf, I agree with most of the things you state are bad. My criteria for choosing are different, however - for one, I don't use "God hates" as a criterion anywhere. I've basically spelled out my criteria above and in previous posts. As a result, we probably don't agree precisely on the "degree" of bad. For example, I consider marriage as just a contract rather than a "sacred" thing, so I view adultery as a special case of lying.

Laws absolutely should be connected to "things that are bad." Laws should codify things which a society thinks are bad enough to require extra disincentive. Punishment is attached for deterrence, but I don't know what form of punishment is ideal - perhaps exile from the society for a variable period of time? I don't think all bad things need laws against them, though. For example, "white lies" - while slightly harmful, not enough so to require action. Some cases of lying - for example, lying which results in physical harm to someone - certainly should be banned, though.

[Col. Hstar]

I was about post more cat pics now I guess I have to get serious again

I'm not disputing any of the above. All of it is valid. What I am disputing are your claims that the Bible is "scientifically sound", "100% accurately prophetic", and "without contradictions". These are unrelated to, and in fact contradicted by, the above. They have all been demonstrated to be false within this thread.

Then I honestly don't think that there is anything more to debate. (On this part between you and me) You're convinced that your proof is correct, I am convinced that the Bible is. You can't force feed me links and tell me I have to disregard what I believe just because you say your proof is irrefutable. I view both the bible and your proof differently then you do. I can accept that if you can't then I can offer you nothing more then a "Let's move on"

One more, probably futile attempt to get you to realize this: Suppose Deuteronomy 22:22, instead of saying "If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel," said "Sleeping with someone is bad if you or they are married to someone else, and you don't have permission. It makes the one(s) being "cheated on" unhappy. Don't do it." Pick a better wording if you prefer. This would have exactly the same value in guiding us today, without inspiring fundamentalists to unjustly kill people. Better, even, since it's not restricted to a man and a married woman. I've just provided something that's a strict improvement over the Bible. Thus, the Bible cannot be perfect.

Again your taking the historical portion of the Bible and thinking they are commandments for us today. This is incorrect. As I said in the post before, these historical records and events give us insight to how God views different situations. It shows the kind of conduct he hates and the kind he loves.
I think what you have the problem with is that God does allow capitol punishment, Which he does. At Genesis 9:6 he says "Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image he made man" Now when it came to how God dealt with Israel as his people, various other serious offenses against divine law were also punishable by death. This was very strict but as I pointed out back on page 81 post 9, it was a covenant the people wanted.
They wanted God's blessing as his chosen people

It was for those people because that was the covenant they agreed to. The Bible shows that they wanted those laws because they wanted to be God's special people. Back then they did have what you and Yanoda were asking for, iron clad physical proof that God existed because he delivered them out of Egypt. He also set out the conditions for the covenant between him and the Israelites. (Exodus 19:3-8; 20:1–23:33) When these conditions were related by Moses, the Israelites declared: “All that Jehovah has spoken we are willing to do and be obedient.” (Exodus 24:3-7) Of their own free will, they became a nation dedicated to the Sovereign Lord Jehovah. As a dedicated nation representing his name they adhered by the law code that was strict. It was strict to keep the nation morally and spiritually clean. Those people were not forced to remain with the nation, at anytime they could leave but they didn't because it was their choice.

[Darth Crater]

Again your taking the historical portion of the Bible and thinking they are commandments for us today. This is incorrect. As I said in the post before, these historical records and events give us insight to how God views different situations. It shows the kind of conduct he hates and the kind he loves.

Exactly. The version of the Bible I proposed is strictly better than the current one for this purpose. The original can be interpreted literally, so some people will interpret it literally. Thus, people will be killed who would not be if the altered version replaced it. Thus, there is a better text than the current Bible. Unless, that is, you believe it is still permissible to kill adulterers, in which case we have bigger disagreements.

[THEWULFMAN]

Careful - "we have no proof we don't have souls" does imply "we should not rule out that we have souls", but not "we should believe we have souls".

I believe they exist and souls and have no proof they don't exist. I don't believe in them because I have no proof of a lack of their existence. I believe in them because I believe in Heaven and life after death.

When it comes to religion and science, I will continue to believe something until I have proof it doesn't exist. I don't have any proper rationale for why I believe in something. But, no offense to the Colonel and MT, when I do see that science contradicts what I believe I defer to science. I honestly think it's the only way to go, it's more of the middle ground between atheism and creationism.

[Col. Hstar]

Again your taking the historical portion of the Bible and thinking they are commandments for us today. This is incorrect. As I said in the post before, these historical records and events give us insight to how God views different situations. It shows the kind of conduct he hates and the kind he loves.

Exactly. The version of the Bible I proposed is strictly better than the current one for this purpose. The original can be interpreted literally, so some people will interpret it literally. Thus, people will be killed who would not be if the altered version replaced it. Thus, there is a better text than the current Bible. Unless, that is, you believe it is still permissible to kill adulterers, in which case we have bigger disagreements.

So what was your point then? If your able to grasp that God hates adultery from Deuteronomy 22:22 then it accomplished it's purpose.
Also If your looking for the perfect phrase then that's in the Bible too.

And one of them, versed in the Law, asked, testing him: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” He said to him: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments the whole Law hangs.

Note that Jesus did not say that the Law was wrong. He said that living by both those commandments encompasses all the laws.For example: If you love your neighbor as yourself, you wouldn't commit adultery against them. I think we've made some progress here. At least I hope.

@Wulfman - No offense taken, and not to be terse, but I too would stop believing in something if it's proven scientifically false. It's all in how we look at things.
EDIT: And by that I mean you and I as different human beings will look at scientific results and interpretations of what the Bible says differently. Not that your wrong and I'm right or visa versa.

[Darth Crater]

Yes, it accomplished its purpose, but with unwanted side effects. I proposed a version that eliminated those unwanted side effects. This is colloquially known as "better".

Also, that you still believe the Flood happened contradicts what you're saying to Wulf.

EDIT: Those two commands encompass the laws? If I loved someone, I would not murder them for adultery. Thus, that particular verse cannot be covered by those two commands.

EDIT2 @ Below - sure, take your time.

[THEWULFMAN]

I'll answer to more of what you said Crater, I just don't have the time right now.

[Col. Hstar]

Yes, it accomplished its purpose, but with unwanted side effects. I proposed a version that eliminated those unwanted side effects. This is colloquially known as "better".

Well I feel Jesus' way of phrasing it was infinitely better then your so....
And side effects? Mankind finds any and every reason to justify killing, whether it be religion, political ideals, terrorism, or just straight up wanting something that doesn't belong to them. The Bible is hardly to blame, people are.

Also, that you still believe the Flood happened contradicts what you're saying to Wulf.

Not for me it doesn't. In your interpretation of the bible and the scientific facts it does, but I am not you and you are not me. Its a concept that you fail to grasp.

Now I'm going to bed I'll respond tomorrow if needed.

EDIT: About the 2 commands and adultery - You refuse to read what I have said over, and over, and over , and over again about how the laws were strict for the Israelites as God's Special People because they WANTED IT. I'm done explaining this. It's yet another concept you can't or refuse to grasp.

Now I'm REALLY going to bed

[[m'kay]]

Souls

I believe in reincarnation, so the "existence" of a soul is an open and shut case for me. No, I can't prove it, and I have no intention of trying. The only "evidence" I have is purely anecdotal and so divorced from anything that can be fundamentally proved that it barely bears mentioning, but there have been times where i've felt much, much older than I have any right to. I'm not talking about "oh man i'm so much more ~adult~ than my peers" or anything, but just a crushing sense of age.

As you say, I can't really consider a subjective experience as strong evidence. However - since reincarnation requires a soul, shouldn't you need to believe in a soul first, not the other way around?

Eh, strictly speaking I suppose that's true. For me it was more trying to rationalize why I felt the way I did, which lead to me to the idea of reincarnation, which led me to believing in souls.

Here's what I think about the er. For most definitions of "soul" as something spiritual, apart from, or distinguishable from the body, I don't believe they exist. Everything I've seen about human behavior seems to be explained by the brain or the body. Thoughts and memories are electronic and chemical processes. Evidence for this is the correlation of damage in the brain and changes in the thoughts/personality. Also, the ability of hormones and drugs to function properly and alter behavior. In a computer metaphor, our conscious mind is basically one program running on the hardwired OS of the body. I would certainly like to have a "true form" less destructible than a body, but I don't see evidence for it.

Yeah, I think you're pretty much right. There's no evidence for a soul's existence. However, I do believe it does. And hell, in my opinion it's best that we DON'T discover whether or not we have souls - if people found out that they would pretty much never die in the long run, what kind of sick twisted [poo] would we get up to? If I was designing a system like this, i'd make damn sure it wouldn't be possible to be found by science. But then, these are all pretty words. I won't deny that human science has found no evidence of a soul, but that won't diminish my belief in the least. Mostly because my belief stems around the idea of humanity being [m'kay] stupid. Y'know, just saying.

This implies a couple of things for my philosophy:

-If somebody dies ("death" here defined as degradation of the brain to non-function, not a stopped heart or anything similarly reversible), they are gone. They've stopped existing. No ghosts, no afterlife, no messages from beyond, nothing. Doing this to someone without their consent is the worst possible thing you can do to them.

In a sense, I would believe this to be true. I do believe in reincarnation, but that still means that every life is a singular instance, with a beginning and an end. No er what, dying prevents the person that was there from coming back. The next "instance" of life that person experiences will have no memories of the previous life except a vague sort of understanding, and perhaps some odd inclinations for or against certain actions. However, I do not believe that killing someone without their consent is absolutely the worst thing you could do to a person. It would be much, much worse to be psychologically and physically tortured until no semblance of the self remained, and then leaving them to live their empty lives in a dark corner. There's always something worse than death.

-This life is all we have. Everything we do should be aimed at maximizing our own and others' happiness within it. That implies, as long as we're happier to exist than not to exist, that we should prolong our lives as much as possible.

Going along with what you said earlier, about how you believe humanity's emotions and feelings are all electrical signals and whatnot, this kind of statement rings some alarm bells. I've been thinking for a while about what the end-game of psychology is, and have come to the conclusion that if humanity does figure out what makes itself tick, about ten minutes afterwards we'll be pouring out liquified happiness and fulfillment instead of doing things that would actually elicit these responses. In this case, wouldn't maximizing our own happiness along with others' mean nothing more than manipulating their minds? That seems empty and cold, to me at least. I don't want to live in a world where "you" is something that is so ephemeral that it can be changed in the blink of an eye. That's why I choose to believe in the soul.

-We are fundamentally changeable. If our brains are computers, we can reprogram them. If our bodies are hardware, we can upgrade them. We can, given the technology, become whatever we want. We can stop aging. We can ignore pain. We can become spaceships. Our ability to change ourselves and the universe is limited only by physical laws and our understanding.

I'm not quite sure what to say to this, to be honest. It's very likely that what you say is true, and that terrifies me more than anything. We shouldn't be trusted with altering ourselves, much less the universe itself. We [m'kay] suck at it. Think about it, if everyone could change the universe, tell me without a hint of hesitation that galaxies would not start getting formed in the shape of giant dicks. There would be giant [Richard] galaxies, and once in a while they'd smash into big vagina shaped galaxies, all because some thirteen year old kid thinks it'll be [m'kay] hilarious. No. Not good. I don't want to trust humanity with this burden.

So, I suppose the questions I should be asking are:

-First, and most importantly, do you see any holes or inconsistencies in my beliefs as stated above?

Eh, I already addressed all that in the above with my obnoxious colored italiced bolded text, so no worries there.

-What do you think the soul actually does? In other words, how do you define "soul"?

The soul is the repository for the self, and the means by which enlightenment can be reached. Trying to keep it as simple as I can since when I try to explain it further I sound like a complete stoner.

-Given that definition, what causes you to think that we have souls? How do you think we can detect them or their influence?

I believe we have souls because the alternative is too horrifying to think of. The thought that, at some point in the future, the idea of the self might become so malleable that I could pick up new personality traits at the drug store [m'kay] terrifies me. And the fact is, it will go that far - farther, most likely. Humanity has never been known for knowing when to quit, and that's what will lead to the end of humanity as we know it.

God, I really didn't want to have to resort to the whole colored text embedded in the quote thing, but I really couldn't see any way not to. And Homestar, for the love of [m'kay], we're trying to move on to something more interesting than the same tired argument that's been going on for like twenty pages. Turn the other cheek, for all of our sakes.

[Darth Crater]

(Sorry - I try to stop the walls of text but they just keep growing! Shrinking quotes was a nice idea at least - let me know if it works or if it's too hard to read.)

Well I feel Jesus' way of phrasing it was infinitely better then your so...

That's why I said "Pick a better wording if you prefer." Pick any wording that you like that doesn't have the side effect of being easily interpreted as encouraging murder. Swap that in. Now you have an improved Bible. "Improvable" and "perfect" are mutually contradictory.

You seem to think that "scientific facts" are much more mutable and interpretable than they really are. If two plus two equals four, then it cannot equal five. This is not open for interpretation. If there is only so much water on Earth, more water cannot magically appear and then vanish. This is not open for interpretation. If there are none of the things we would expect to see if civilizations worldwide were eradicated by the same massive flood, then there is no evidence for it. This is not open for interpretation.

Yeah, I think you're pretty much right. There's no evidence for a soul's existence. However, I do believe it does. And hell, in my opinion it's best that we DON'T discover whether or not we have souls - if people found out that they would pretty much never die in the long run, what kind of sick twisted [poo] would we get up to? If I was designing a system like this, i'd make damn sure it wouldn't be possible to be found by science. But then, these are all pretty words.

I think that if it influences us at all, it can be detected. If it puts thoughts into our heads, for example, we can detect the changes with neuroimaging. We might not be at the level to test this yet, but we can probably do it in the next century if not. The only things that are undetectable are the things that don't exist, or do nothing. For all of those, Occam's Razor.

However, I do not believe that killing someone without their consent is absolutely the worst thing you could do to a person. It would be much, much worse to be psychologically and physically tortured until no semblance of the self remained, and then leaving them to live their empty lives in a dark corner. There's always something worse than death.

Good point. I agree that many people would choose death over that. I'm pretty sure that destroying the "self" in this way should count as death, really (just with a side effect of leaving a person in pain as well, which I guess does make it worse). However - we'll most likely develop the ability to selectively block memories. I'm not sure reversing the psychological damage will be that easy, but given time we could probably work out a method. It's much harder to develop a method to undo death. (Though when/if we do, say by proper mind copying.... that opens several more cans of issues.)

"Causing someone to die is among the worst things you can do to them", then? The ranking of "worst" being determined by what that person would choose? This lets it change over time as other fates become more reversible or temporary. Determining "worst" by the person in question's beliefs also simplifies it by obsoleting that "without consent" bit.

Going along with what you said earlier, about how you believe humanity's emotions and feelings are all electrical signals and whatnot, this kind of statement rings some alarm bells. I've been thinking for a while about what the end-game of psychology is, and have come to the conclusion that if humanity does figure out what makes itself tick, about ten minutes afterwards we'll be pouring out liquified happiness and fulfillment instead of doing things that would actually elicit these responses. In this case, wouldn't maximizing our own happiness along with others' mean nothing more than manipulating their minds? That seems empty and cold, to me at least.

Do you not want to alter yourself to be constantly flooded with dopamine, or whatever future science devises? Then don't. I'm not sure I would ever do such a thing. I would like to alter some things about myself, but I don't know if that would be one of them. It's not really about "pure happiness at all costs" so much as "do whatever you think will make you happiest." As long as it doesn't hurt or kill anyone else, anyway. The Wiccans have it right - "An it harm none, do what ye will."

I'm not quite sure what to say to this, to be honest. It's very likely that what you say is true, and that terrifies me more than anything. We shouldn't be trusted with altering ourselves, much less the universe itself. We [m'kay] suck at it. Think about it, if everyone could change the universe, tell me without a hint of hesitation that galaxies would not start getting formed in the shape of giant dicks. There would be giant [Richard] galaxies, and once in a while they'd smash into big vagina shaped galaxies, all because some thirteen year old kid thinks it'll be [m'kay] hilarious. No. Not good. I don't want to trust humanity with this burden.

The future is glorious and terrifying. Natural selection never prepared us for anything like what we face now, let alone in the future. We've had to brute-force nearly every advance in science and civilization, and we're getting to the level where failure could wipe out the species. Really my hope is that we'll manage to develop a safe AI to rule us before we manage to wipe ourselves out. That or spread out enough that the Earth isn't a single point of failure anymore. Beyond that - if it's not hurting anyone, why not let teenage space post-humans collide galaxies shaped like genitals? If humans don't want to be "humanity as we know it" anymore, why stop them?

The soul is the repository for the self, and the means by which enlightenment can be reached.

What is the "self", beyond the thoughts and memories? What is "enlightenment", and how specifically does a soul help you reach it?

I don't want to live in a world where "you" is something that is so ephemeral that it can be changed in the blink of an eye. That's why I choose to believe in the soul.
...
I believe we have souls because the alternative is too horrifying to think of. The thought that, at some point in the future, the idea of the self might become so malleable that I could pick up new personality traits at the drug store [m'kay] terrifies me. And the fact is, it will go that far - farther, most likely. Humanity has never been known for knowing when to quit, and that's what will lead to the end of humanity as we know it.

Believing something simply because you do not want to believe the alternative is not good practice. Wanting to believe something is not evidence for that something. The truth will stay the same, regardless of your belief. For example - I don't want to live in a world where homosexuals, Jews, or ethnic minorities are shunned, tormented, or even killed for no good reason. I don't want to live in a world where people were willing to let the Holocaust happen. This does nothing to change the facts. All you accomplish, by basing your beliefs on your wants, is hurting your ability to make predictions. If you did not want to believe that reincarnation happened or that souls existed, would you still do so?