44,000 year old house built by Neanderthals discovered

[Walsingham]

I don't try to explain the soul any more than I try to explain quasars, or carburettors.

 

~

 

Evangelical Atheists are however frequently very good indicators that the worst aspects of religious zeal actually have very little to do with religion

 

This

[Guard Dog]

So, guys, your attacks on atheism aside, where do you account for the evolution of 'souls'?

We're not attacking atheisim, we're attacking you because your comment was nasty, condescending, and insulting. You do that a lot these days. As for as souls, a far as I'm concered my dogs have souls so I'm quite sure all the early forebears of humans did too. You seem to be under the misguided impression that christianity is a monolithic institution and every member conforms to the exact dogma you've decided it has. It's not.

 

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go bang some rocks together or bomb an abortion clinic or whatever us non-people do.

[Walsingham]

If anything, this thread proves that WE ARE OUR SOULS.

[Malcador]

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go bang some rocks together or bomb an abortion clinic or whatever us non-people do.

 

Pft, donning black robes and stalking the night with a brazier and a cruciform mace, purging the uncleand and burning heretics is the way to do it.

[Guard Dog]

For those who are seeking a "non-traditional" religion you might give this a try: http://geekout.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/20/st...czech-republic/

 

Hey, if it makes them happy, more power (er.. force) to them.

[Morgoth]

Even though I was raised a Roman Catholic, I never considered myself religious, nor did I practice it.

 

I think however it is important to live a spiritual life, otherwise you're gonna end up being one sad ****.

[Orogun01]

Look for all atheist attacks on Religion and their incessant quoting of the Middle Ages, Christianity has managed to chisel their ethics into humanity. They may believe that one is born with a sense of good and evil but that's simply not true. Thousands of years of acquired behavior have shaped us into quite the docile breed.

[Walsingham]

Even though I was raised a Roman Catholic, I never considered myself religious, nor did I practice it.

 

I think however it is important to live a spiritual life, otherwise you're gonna end up being one sad ****.

 

I have to agree with Morgoth on this last.

 

I'm not sure if it's because there's something spiritual, or if its just a mnemonic for coping with the massive complexity in our environment, though. Personally I don't see that it makes any odds either way. If you';re running around and doing good ****, and feeling good, then doesn't that make your 'engine' valid?

[Hell Kitty]

I do not believe in any of the gods that people have worshipped throughout history, which would make me an atheist. Being raised Roman Catholic I think that Jesus fella had some good things to say, and I wish more people who call themselves Christian would follow the teachings of the man they call Christ.

[Pidesco]

^What he said.

[Amentep]

where do you account for the evolution of 'souls'?

 

Taking the question seriously, I think we'd have to be able to quantify what a soul is to be able to answer that question, which AFAIK we are not able to do (at this time and assuming they exist).

 

Arguments I've seen in various religions (for example, the idea that souls already exist and are born into the world vs the idea that a soul is created at conception) would have to indicate different potential origins.

 

Also while creationism can be supportive of evolution, the idea of a creator could also add in the possibility of things created without the benefit of evolution which could throw any argument...

[Rosbjerg]

Any discussion between a religious person and a diehard atheist is pointless - as is any discussion between a reasonable person and a fundamentalist of any degree. Both are arguing from a point of view that is irrelevant and detrimental to the other. One demands proof, the other demands faith.

[TheHarlequin]

Most major religions accept evolution so far as I know.

 

If you came to Salem, MA during Oct and listened to the born agains, baptists and catholics you'd change your tune pretty quick on that statement. Putting aside the 'you are all going to burn in hell for celebrating Halloween' and when they are not fighting among themselves (very entertaining seeing the born agains rag on the baptists who in turn rag on the catholics who rag on the born agains.. rinse and repeat) you will see all 3 groups all do agree that evolution is fake and the world is only ~6000 yrs old.

 

As for the story itself very interesting. I do not think we have a full understanding of the impact of these people and all the theories I have read so far just don't seem to jive, at least for me. I think in the end we will find they had a much broader and deeper impact on our history then we currently realize.

[Guard Dog]

You know, it occured to me last night, as I enjoyed a glass of good bourbon while sitting on my porch and watching the rain fall, that both atheists and religious people are operating from a great deal of faith. The atheist asserts there is no god because his existence cannot be proven. People of faith believe in Him because His existence cannot be disproven. Both are accepting their position based solely on faith, not fact. Ironic isn't it? I guess the only people who have a logical viewpoint are the agnostics.

 

But before you agnostic folks start high fiveing in celebration remember this: not taking a position at all makes you wishy washy!

 

By the way, Merry Christmas Krezzie, I hope you get lots of enviormentally unfriendly gifts so you can spend the whole day stewing in your own bitter venom. I'll turn on a few extra lights tonight and leave them on... just for you.

[Walsingham]

I'll turn on a few extra lights tonight and leave them on... just for you.

 

This made me laugh like Muttley, from the wacky racers.

[Darth InSidious]

Most major religions accept evolution so far as I know.

 

If you came to Salem, MA during Oct and listened to the born agains, baptists and catholics you'd change your tune pretty quick on that statement. Putting aside the 'you are all going to burn in hell for celebrating Halloween' and when they are not fighting among themselves (very entertaining seeing the born agains rag on the baptists who in turn rag on the catholics who rag on the born agains.. rinse and repeat) you will see all 3 groups all do agree that evolution is fake and the world is only ~6000 yrs old.

This may be the case in Salem, MA, but it is not quite the same everywhere, and I would submit that Catholics in Salem who were putting forward this position are considerably out of step with the Vatican. It mgiht be worth pointing them in the direction of Pius XII's bull Humani Generis, and indeed the then-Cardinal Ratzinger's 1995 book In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, and indeed, the 2008 book Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo. There are a few among other relevant pieces. You might also like to point out to them that the celebration of All Hallowe's Eve is an old Catholic tradition.

 

On the story itself, it's interesting, but I'm not seeing many consequences of it, to be honest. That neanderthals were capable of a degree of complex activity like house-building, etc., does not seem to contradict that they were of lower intelligence than homo sapiens and may have died out as a result of inability to adapt. A single example seems to indicate an anomaly or exception to the rule rather than a new norm, IMO. But evo/anth and prehistory aren't really my thing.

 

Oh, and I do consider people who smugly copypasta the same little witticisms as every other Dawkins/Hitchens fanboy to be people, I generally number them among those too stupid to bother with - much like creationists.

[Maria Caliban]

I don't know, where in the evolutionary ladder do you account for the emergence of self-awareness?

What do you mean by self-awareness?

 

My cat likely gets that the environment, I, and other cats are something different than she is. I doubt a worm manages even that. But I don't think my cat has a concept of self. She never thinks, "I am Fluffykins the cat. I exist," because that's a bit too abstract for her.

 

That is, I think she has an awareness of self but not a conceptualization of self.

 

How can a man that enjoys his Mary Jane be so angry and hostile all the time?

Because weed might alter your mood but it doesn't touch your personality.

 

So, guys, your attacks on atheism aside, where do you account for the evolution of 'souls'?

There's no such thing as the evolution of souls. If you're talking Christianity, which you seem to be, the soul is something created by God and given to humanity. In Genesis, the Adam is made from dust and God breaths into him, filling him with the living spirit. This is the same breath/living spirit [nephesh] that God put into *all* creatures, so your question makes no damn sense.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Maria Caliban

[Wrath of Dagon]

I don't know, where in the evolutionary ladder do you account for the emergence of self-awareness?

What do you mean by self-awareness?

 

My cat likely gets that the environment, I, and other cats are something different than she is. I doubt a worm manages even that. But I don't think my cat has a concept of self. She never thinks, "I am Fluffykins the cat. I exist," because that's a bit too abstract for her.

 

That is, I think she has an awareness of self but not a conceptualization of self.

Well, conceptualization of self as you define it seems to me "self awareness + abstract thought". So we still have the issue of whether animals can have abstract thought. Can a dolphin or a chimp? I don't know. Anyway, to me a more interesting question is whether a machine can be self aware.

[Walsingham]

I know it's probably more complex than I'm allowing, but surely all you have to do to make a machine self aware is to tell it be aware of itself and provide the sensors.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Your probably and surely are contradictory. Be that as it may, do you really believe a computer that is programmed with an id and has sensors for its various parts is self-aware in the same way as a human? I think now is a good time to post this link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/

[Walsingham]

Aware = check

 

Of self = check

 

I was taught a cognitive information processing model of human thought, so I don't go looking for mysteries that don't need to be there. We're self aware like a sea-slug is self aware. I have difficulty believing a sea slug is less aware than a supercomputer.

 

Unless you're talking about philosophy. But to my mind that simply an abstraction of the primary sense data. And it's so wildly bonkers most of the time tht I don't regard that as particularly attractive.

[Wrath of Dagon]

So a sea slug is a conscious being in your opinion?

[Gorgon]

I wonder if a sea slug is haunted by questios of 'why.' The intelligent self aware man is.

[Gorgon]

Any discussion between a religious person and a diehard atheist is pointless - as is any discussion between a reasonable person and a fundamentalist of any degree. Both are arguing from a point of view that is irrelevant and detrimental to the other. One demands proof, the other demands faith.

 

But again the Atheist has the better position. It is logcial after all to demand proof of an on the face of it pretty outrageous claim. More logical certainly than to propose erecting an invisible wall between the imperical and the metaphysical and demanding that they not be allowed to affect one another. It's not a perfectly balanced dichotomy. One side is cheating by proposing that it need only supply anecdotal evidence of its existence.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Gorgon

[Tale]

Any discussion between a religious person and a diehard atheist is pointless - as is any discussion between a reasonable person and a fundamentalist of any degree. Both are arguing from a point of view that is irrelevant and detrimental to the other. One demands proof, the other demands faith.

 

But again the Atheist has the better position. It is logcial after all to demand proof of an on the face of it pretty outrageous claim. More logical certainly than to propose erecting an invisible wall between the imperical and the metaphysical and demanding that they not be allowed to affect one another. It's not a perfectly balanced dichotomy. One side is cheating by proposing that it need only supply anecdotal evidence of its existence.

But Rosbjerg seems more intent on the value of the discussion. And I would agree with his point in respect to the participants. Faith and skepticism lack commonalities to appeal to each other.

 

As for other witnesses to the exchange, that is another matter. For which it is hard to make a general case.