Atheism, etc. and the existence of the soul

robindch · 27-07-2007 11:41am

PDN wrote:

I have now found an atheist equivalent to plankton-eating lions living on mountain tops.

Could you let us know exactly what's the equivalent of the plankton-eating lions bit?

JimiTime · 28-07-2007 12:05pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

If christians did not and should not believe in a soul, what is judged by god?

We are. If he has the ability to create, recreate, resurrect etc etc, all you need is to be remembered. Lazarus was 'dead' for days and was resurrected. Nothing indicated that he was in heaven, and if he was, I think he would have been a bit disappointed to be sent back down to earth.

PS. I believe in a soul just not the floaty off immortal one. but I think I've been clear enough on the Soul I speak of.

Galvasean · 30-07-2007 3:31pm

robindch wrote:

Could you let us know exactly what's the equivalent of the plankton-eating lions bit?

I too would like to know this. Although the concept of such a complex artificial brain is somewhat in the realm of science-fiction at the moment I don see how it compares to the plankton eating lions (which seem to have been made up on the spot).

MooseJam · 30-07-2007 8:08pm

The human body has been 100% mapped now right down to the genome and we do not have a soul, fact, we simply do not have one

PDN · 30-07-2007 10:07pm

robindch wrote:

Could you let us know exactly what's the equivalent of the plankton-eating lions bit?

Look guys, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. If you want to believe in exact computerised replicas of people's brains, complete with little logic gates and neuron transplants, then that's fine by me. After all, everybody has to believe in something.

Attractive Nun · 30-07-2007 11:20pm

JimiTime wrote:

We are. If he has the ability to create, recreate, resurrect etc etc, all you need is to be remembered. Lazarus was 'dead' for days and was resurrected. Nothing indicated that he was in heaven, and if he was, I think he would have been a bit disappointed to be sent back down to earth.

PS. I believe in a soul just not the floaty off immortal one. but I think I've been clear enough on the Soul I speak of.

So wait, then what goes to heaven? If our 'soul/life/consciousness' isn't immortal but instead dies with our body, and our body quite obviously hangs around on earth long after its lost life, then what's left for the afterlife? Logically, if there is to be an afterlife then there are only a few options in this regard:
1. Our bodies physically move into heaven/hell, like Jesus'. Clearly this is preposterous.
2. There exists a supernatural part of us that would conventionally be described as a 'soul'. Upon our physical death, this goes to heaven/hell and lives on independently of our decomposing bodies. You seem quite plainly to have rejected this idea.
3. There are an infinite number of alternative explanations that could be conconcted, perhaps a 'copy' of our 'soul/life/essence/consciousness' exists, or is created on our death, in heaven/hell, for example. But beyond option 1 or 2, you would really be talking about a radically unusual theology - one that could scarcely be called biblical and certainly not Christian.

Or perhaps I am missing something?

JC 2K3 · 30-07-2007 11:45pm

PDN wrote:

Look guys, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. If you want to believe in exact computerised replicas of people's brains, complete with little logic gates and neuron transplants, then that's fine by me. After all, everybody has to believe in something.

You're not saying you don't believe in AI or that medical nanotechnology isn't possible, are you???

aidan24326 · 31-07-2007 1:15am

PDN wrote:

Look guys, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. If you want to believe in exact computerised replicas of people's brains, complete with little logic gates and neuron transplants, then that's fine by me. After all, everybody has to believe in something.

And why do you think you'd be raining on anyone's parade? There's no telling what kind of technology will be available in the future. What Zillah described is obviously highly speculative but it is (more than likely) theoretically possible and given enough time for technological advancement who knows what will be achieved? Much of our modern technology would have been undreamt of only 1000 years ago.

The point is that advances in AI will blur the lines between what we consider alive and inanimate and may some day raise some thorny questions for those who believe in a soul. But there is no such thing as a 'soul', it's just a convenient bypassing of death, a ticket to the next life since nobody in their right mind would suggest that we actually ascend bodily into heaven as Jesus supposedly did. Why can't people accept that we're just very complex biochemical machines and leave it at that? Is that not wondrous enough in itself? that little bits of stardust (us) have become aware of themselves and may one day be capable of creating new types of lifeform?

robindch · 31-07-2007 1:30am

PDN wrote:

After all, everybody has to believe in something.

Ah, the "everything is a religion" argument! I believe I've heard it before

PDN wrote:

If you want to believe in exact computerised replicas of people's brains, complete with little logic gates and neuron transplants, then that's fine by me.

You don't need to "believe in" engineers being able to replicate the functionality of neurons, since they already exist here:

http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/ and http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/page18924.html (the FAQ)

There are other folks doing similar things elsewhere.

JimiTime · 31-07-2007 2:39am

Attractive Nun wrote:

So wait, then what goes to heaven? If our 'soul/life/consciousness' isn't immortal but instead dies with our body, and our body quite obviously hangs around on earth long after its lost life, then what's left for the afterlife? Logically, if there is to be an afterlife then there are only a few options in this regard:
1. Our bodies physically move into heaven/hell, like Jesus'. Clearly this is preposterous.

2. There exists a supernatural part of us that would conventionally be described as a 'soul'. Upon our physical death, this goes to heaven/hell and lives on independently of our decomposing bodies. You seem quite plainly to have rejected this idea.

I have categorically denied the existence of the immortal soul! I reject the idea of us all being immortal. i reject the idea of hell being a place of eternal torture. I rather believe in Johns actual explaination of it being 'the second death of which their is no resurrection'. As for you describing the soul as a supernatural part of us. Well, thats not what the biblical translation of the word is. The hebrew word nephish means the ability to live. This is what is translated soul in english biblical translations. Now God gives us the ability to live, and he can give us the ability to live again, i.e. resurrection. If there was an immortal soul, there would be no resurrection, merely a new state of being. to be resurrected one must first be dead. the idea of the immortal soul is not something that i would consider biblial at all. in fact I would categorically state its a pagan idea!

3. There are an infinite number of alternative explanations that could be conconcted,

I would beg to differ. i think the options are quite finite. And with prayer and meditation the answer can be quite definite.

perhaps a 'copy' of our 'soul/life/essence/consciousness' exists,

Perhaps, but one thing is certain, we are not immortal! The fact that God knows how many grains of sand there are on a beach. the fact that he knows how to create and recreate and all the secrets of creation, the belief in the immortal soul is not only false, but completely unnecessary!

But beyond option 1 or 2, you would really be talking about a radically unusual theology - one that could scarcely be called biblical and certainly not Christian.

I'm glad you think so, it means I'm doing something right. Religion dopes the mind with doctrine IMO. Saying my view is not christian, would certainly be true to a catholic etc. However, Christ is my lord and mediator not man. I trust my own honesty in seeking truth. I accept that i am a flawed man that makes mistakes, but what I do know, is that I am Christian. many would disagree, but I'm safe in the knowledge that they don't matter, Christ is my King. So by all means debate the immortal soul on the basis of scripture, but refrain from the 'your view is not christian' talk until you actually show that it isn't. It may be against alot of denominational doctrine, but I would argue that it is not against Christ. I am open to be shown the error of my ways, so by all means proceed.

Zillah · 31-07-2007 3:32am

PDN wrote:

Look guys, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. If you want to believe in exact computerised replicas of people's brains, complete with little logic gates and neuron transplants, then that's fine by me. After all, everybody has to believe in something.

Uh, you clearly don't understand what a logic gate is. Everything I proposed is theoretically possible, and as Robindch pointed out is being worked on already. Here's an exerpt in case you didn't bother following the link:

"At the end of 2006, the Blue Brain project reached an important milestone -- the proof of principle that the brain can be simulated at the cellular level. Biologically accurate neurons can now be reconstructed, based on detailed experimental data, at the push of a button. And the neurons can be automatically connected in a biological manner, a task that involves positioning around 30 million synapses in precise 3D locations. These neurons and their connections have been used to reconstruct the basic functional unit of the brain, the neocortical column."

The kinds of technology we have now are the result of a bare few hundreds of years of advancement. The kind of technology I propose for the future is a rather tame and conservative estimate compared to what is proposed by other men, all of whom are far more educated in relevant fields than you or I. Ever heard of the Kardashev Scale?

Your lack of technological understanding is not a convincing basis for an argument, nor is your inadequate grasp of the potential of our species.

Zillah · 31-07-2007 5:04am

JimiTime wrote:

I have categorically denied the existence of the immortal soul! I reject the idea of us all being immortal. i reject the idea of hell being a place of eternal torture. I rather believe in Johns actual explaination of it being 'the second death of which their is no resurrection'.

Ok, let me try and describe your position so far:

1 - Hell is dying without being ressurected.
2 - There is no such thing as immortality.
3 - When Christians die they will eventually be ressurected.

Then what? Do they live forever? They're immortal...? If not, do they die again, forever? Are we all doomed to "Hell"? What about heaven, where does that factor into all this?

(I'll point out that Jehovah's Witnesses kind of agree with you, that Hell is somewhere where sinners are destroyed forever rather than tortured forever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism).

JimiTime · 31-07-2007 9:50am

Zillah wrote:

Ok, let me try and describe your position so far:

1 - Hell is dying without being ressurected.

Well actually, There are 3 words which are translated to hell. Gehenna, Sheol and Hades. I believe Hell is the grave. When John talks about the lake of burning sulphur in revelation, he proceeds to literally say 'which means the second death of which there is no resurrection'.

2 - There is no such thing as immortality.

Not quite. I said no such thing as the immortal soul. God can destroy us completely making us mortal.

3 - When Christians die they will eventually be ressurected.

Yes.

Then what? Do they live forever? They're immortal...?

This is a topic in itself. We have been told only so much. You mentioned the JW's. They believe in a heavenly class based on the 144,000 mentioned in the bible, and and an earthly paradise resurrection. Revelation mentions a new earth as well as heaven. Adam had everlasting life, but was not immortal, the difference being that everlasting life does not mean you 'cannot' die. TBH, this is something that requires study, something that I really could not give you an absolute concise answer on in this moment in time. please accept my apologies for this, as I am still in the process of studying myself. I'm sure you'd appreciate me not spouting out stuff in ignorance.

(I'll point out that Jehovah's Witnesses kind of agree with you, that Hell is somewhere where sinners are destroyed forever rather than tortured forever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism).

Indeed, they agree with alot of what I'm saying and disagree with others.

Zillah · 31-07-2007 10:44am

JimiTime wrote:

TBH, this is something that requires study, something that I really could not give you an absolute concise answer on in this moment in time. please accept my apologies for this, as I am still in the process of studying myself. I'm sure you'd appreciate me not spouting out stuff in ignorance.

Well of course, but this is the point at which you completely lose me. How can you possibly accept this extraordinary cosmology/metaphysics when its not even internally consistent and complete? How can you bring yourself to accept the incredible claims that this book* makes when its not even thorough? The things its says are true completely lack evidence and I just cannot empathise with a person who can take it at face value.

You truly believe that the omnipotent Creator of the universe will physically resurrect all the dead human beings that obeyed him at the end of time? Leaving tens of billions of humans and proto-humans to oblivion because they didn't read/hear of the Bible? Or existed before it was written? What about all the species of sentient aliens that science tells us are very likely to be out there? You think perhaps they got a visit from Jesus too? Will they be resurected when God has his synchronised time of judgement across several galaxies? Its all just so ludicrous, I'm sorry. As a hypothesis it is deeply, truly, inescapably flawed.

*Thats really all there is, a book. No miracles and prophets and Godly actions, just a book that talks about these things.

JimiTime · 31-07-2007 12:38pm

Zillah wrote:

Well of course, but this is the point at which you completely lose me. How can you possibly accept this extraordinary cosmology/metaphysics when its not even internally consistent and complete? How can you bring yourself to accept the incredible claims that this book* makes when its not even thorough? The things its says are true completely lack evidence and I just cannot empathise with a person who can take it at face value.

Indeed, that is why you are an atheist, and I am a Faithful Christian. You can rant about it, but I don't claim to be basing my Faith on scientific method etc. Nor do I expect you to empathise with me.

You truly believe that the omnipotent Creator of the universe will physically resurrect all the dead human beings that obeyed him at the end of time? Leaving tens of billions of humans and proto-humans to oblivion because they didn't read/hear of the Bible? Or existed before it was written? What about all the species of sentient aliens that science tells us are very likely to be out there? You think perhaps they got a visit from Jesus too? Will they be resurected when God has his synchronised time of judgement across several galaxies? Its all just so ludicrous, I'm sorry. As a hypothesis it is deeply, truly, inescapably flawed.

a) All will be resurrected to judgement, including those who predate the scriptures.
b) I don't believe in proto-humans. I am one of those 'idiots' who believes in Adam and Eve.
c) Sentient aliens? If they do exist, it is not important enough at this point of time to be revealed to us by God. Nor was it relevant for them to be mentioned in scripture. So, if they exist, they are completely irrelevant to us at the moment. Also, 'very likely to be out there', is just guessing. No proof or evidence of such beings exist, so really at this point of time they are not even worth mentioning. In fact, I think its quite ironic that it is.

*Thats really all there is, a book. No miracles and prophets and Godly actions, just a book that talks about these things.

Thats how history was recorded before TV, Photographs and audio recording. This book tells of 'the Godly actions' and the signs of the prophets and of the Christ. It has prophesy that came to pass E.G. Daniel prophesying the order of world powers before they happened.

Attractive Nun · 31-07-2007 1:16pm

JimiTime wrote:

I have categorically denied the existence of the immortal soul! I reject the idea of us all being immortal. i reject the idea of hell being a place of eternal torture. I rather believe in Johns actual explaination of it being 'the second death of which their is no resurrection'. As for you describing the soul as a supernatural part of us. Well, thats not what the biblical translation of the word is. The hebrew word nephish means the ability to live. This is what is translated soul in english biblical translations. Now God gives us the ability to live, and he can give us the ability to live again, i.e. resurrection. If there was an immortal soul, there would be no resurrection, merely a new state of being. to be resurrected one must first be dead. the idea of the immortal soul is not something that i would consider biblial at all. in fact I would categorically state its a pagan idea!

That's fine, I'm not trying to argue with you on theology - I am not equipped to do that - I am just trying to understand what you believe.

So far, I gather you believe something along the lines of - those of us who have 'found God'/whatever will be resurrected upon our own death, and those of us who haven't will not. I understand that this creates an important distinction between us having 'immortal souls' and us simply living at God's behest for as long as he decides. My question is this: if I am follow God's teachings and live a good life, and God judges that I deserve resurrection, then what is resurrected? It can't be our physical remains, surely, because we can observe these decomposing slowly, so it must be some description of a 'soul' (please do not think I intend to bring up any of the connotations associated with that word, I simply mean a part of us - maybe something that is merely associated with us in the cosmos somewhere - that exists independently of our earthly bodies).

So, in regard to the questions posed by this thread, you believe that we don't have 'immortal souls', but we do have 'souls/lives/beings' that effectively might potentially become immortal, or at least have everlasting life?

JimiTime wrote:

I would beg to differ. i think the options are quite finite. And with prayer and meditation the answer can be quite definite.

Well, I only mean 'infinite' in the most technical sense, i.e. if a copy of our soul is created, it could be created in another universe - the characteristics of which could vary to an infinite degree, for example.

JimiTime wrote:

I'm glad you think so, it means I'm doing something right. Religion dopes the mind with doctrine IMO. Saying my view is not christian, would certainly be true to a catholic etc. However, Christ is my lord and mediator not man. I trust my own honesty in seeking truth. I accept that i am a flawed man that makes mistakes, but what I do know, is that I am Christian. many would disagree, but I'm safe in the knowledge that they don't matter, Christ is my King. So by all means debate the immortal soul on the basis of scripture, but refrain from the 'your view is not christian' talk until you actually show that it isn't. It may be against alot of denominational doctrine, but I would argue that it is not against Christ. I am open to be shown the error of my ways, so by all means proceed.

Fair enough, I only meant 'Christian' in the sense of conforming to one or other of the contemporary Christian churches. Further debate on the issue is best left for the Christianity forum.

Zillah · 31-07-2007 7:13pm

JimiTime wrote:

b) I don't believe in proto-humans. I am one of those 'idiots' who believes in Adam and Eve.

Oh wait...you're a young-Earthist? Oh for the love of...

You're just wrong. There are millions and millions of reasons why you're wrong. La la land. Looper dooper town. Nonesense.

Thats how history was recorded before TV, Photographs and audio recording. This book tells of 'the Godly actions' and the signs of the prophets and of the Christ. It has prophesy that came to pass E.G. Daniel prophesying the order of world powers before they happened.

Its also how utter nonesense, such as creation myths, were recorded.

Also, 'very likely to be out there', is just guessing. No proof or evidence of such beings exist, so really at this point of time they are not even worth mentioning. In fact, I think its quite ironic that it is.

Theres a big difference between an educated estimate and a guess. People who dismiss the likelihood of alien life are usually people who grossly underestimate the sheer mind blowing scale of the universe. Our planet is a dot within a dot within a titanic ocean of existence. Here, try this on for size: http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/comparisons.html

Oh, and this is fantastic.

robindch · 01-08-2007 12:45am

JimiTime wrote:

I don't claim to be basing my Faith on scientific method etc [...] No proof or evidence of such beings exist, so really at this point of time they are not even worth mentioning.

Er, so let me get this straight -- we have to provide "evidence", but you can believe what you like and still expect to have your beliefs taken seriously?

JimiTime · 01-08-2007 1:23am

robindch wrote:

Er, so let me get this straight -- we have to provide "evidence", but you can believe what you like and still expect to have your beliefs taken seriously?

Ehh no. i don't expect much from you guys at all. its fairly clear of not only your views, but your contempt for Christianity. You don't have to provide me with anything. It just seemed odd, that your whole reason revolves around the scientific method and not believing in something you don't have evidence for. So that is why i said it was Ironic, that the existence of aliens was mentioned. I don't base my beliefs on science, you do, so its you who are being inconsistent not I. Ok, so the universe is vast and you think its highly unlikely that we are the only living planet, but there is no evidence for this claim. Similarly, i don't believe a person can exist without a creator.

01-08-2007 1:28am

why do you and jakkass always insist anyone arguing has "contempt" for the religion

JimiTime · 01-08-2007 1:35am

Zillah wrote:

Oh wait...you're a young-Earthist? Oh for the love of...

You're just wrong. There are millions and millions of reasons why you're wrong. La la land. Looper dooper town. Nonesense.

No, I believe I said I believed in the existence of Adam and Eve and not in proto-humans. this does not translate to young earth. i don't really care about the age of the earth, it makes no odds to me. the existence of adam and Eve does though.

Its also how utter nonesense, such as creation myths, were recorded.

and indeed how the idiocy of evolution is written down! See, we can both throw stones. But do I care you think its nonsense ehhhhh....No.

Theres a big difference between an educated estimate and a guess.

In relation to what you guys say about the unlikely existence of God, I believe this is a total double standard. you have no evidence of alien life, by all means explore and delve, but until there is life discovered, its a guess, might be an educated guess, but its a guess nonetheless

People who dismiss the likelihood of alien life are usually people who grossly underestimate the sheer mind blowing scale of the universe. Our planet is a dot within a dot within a titanic ocean of existence. Here, try this on for size: http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/comparisons.html

Oh, and this is fantastic.

To clarify, i do not dismiss the likelihood of alien life. Why would I? i merely pointed out that it is largely irrelevant to discuss the notion, as there is no evidence for it.

robindch · 01-08-2007 1:47am

bluewolf wrote:

why do you and jakkass always insist anyone arguing has "contempt" for the religion

I don't have contempt for religion at all as I mentioned in a reply to Jimitime a week or two back - it's a fascinating area of study and as inescapably human as language, music, humor and many other things, but arguably larger and deeper a social construct than all of them.

Having said that I do have considerable fear and contempt for what religion will make cheerfully people do -- whether it's chopping up the Midianites into little bits or flying jets into tall buildings.

You could compare it to explosives; interesting properties, but occasionally lethal.

Zillah · 01-08-2007 2:45am

JimiTime wrote:

I don't base my beliefs on science

This kind of comment always strikes me as very unusual. "Science" is not some odd notion that some people make use of, by definition it represent our most diligent efforts at getting the correct answers about the world. Saying you don't base your beliefs on science is like saying you don't base your beliefs on trying to be right. Religion and science are not two different but equal ways of looking at the world, science has proven itself time and time again to be our best chance at correctly answering questions about the world, anything else is fraught with error, as religion has shown us time and time again.

No, I believe I said I believed in the existence of Adam and Eve and not in proto-humans. this does not translate to young earth. i don't really care about the age of the earth, it makes no odds to me. the existence of adam and Eve does though.

Yes, but you understand that millions of (being virtually all of) the smartest people in the world, who have been given the best education possible, have staggering mountains of evidence and robust scientific theories that say the Biblical notion of Adam and Eve is absolutely poppycock? Where do you draw the line? The Bible says Earth has made in six days, bit by bit, by God. Do you believe that? The Bible also says Adam lived for something immense, like 900 years, do you believe that? What criteria do you use to decide what bits are true or not?

How can you discount the fossil records for proto human species? You think they just invented Homo Erectus? Homo Habilis? Cro Magnon and Neanderthals? There's a few tired Creationist arguments...the devil put them there, carbon dating doesn't work, the flood did it...they're all nonesense.

I believe this is a total double standard. you have no evidence of alien life, by all means explore and delve, but until there is life discovered, its a guess, might be an educated guess, but its a guess nonetheless

We have evidence that life exists.
We have evidence that life exists on this planet.
We have evidence that life can begin spontaneously given the right conditions.
We have evidence that such conditions are possible on other planets.

If you then break down the numbers about how many planets there are and build a predictive model, you can set the likelihood of any given planet having life as preposterously unlikely and still result in there being millions of planets where we would expect life. Again, you're just not appreciating how big the universe is.

I can tell you have no experience in this subject, and frankly its a little frustrating, please go do some reading first.

idiocy of evolution is written down!

Ugh. *bangs head on table*

What, pray tell, is your argument against evolution?

Atheism, etc. and the existence of the soul

Comments