|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Nov 30th, 2003 09:51 PM | ||||
| kahljorn |
In response to the attempt at integregretting thermal dynamics, "OUR ENERGY MUST GO SOMEWHERE WHEN WE DIE" segment of this conversation: "Ashes to ash, dust to dust"... for those of you who are slow, when you die you become fertilizer-- and also over your life cycle you create other "Fertile" substances. Creativity. "Manipulation of the enviroment", I believe someone said something to that extent.... All of which involve exerting our energy to "Create" something else, which is in essence a transfer of "Energy". |
|||
| Nov 29th, 2003 06:54 PM | ||||
| Helm | I EAT LOCUSTS! I HAD SEX WITH MY SISTER! I LIKE GOD | |||
| Nov 29th, 2003 12:21 AM | ||||
| The_Rorschach |
I miss Otter Pops 
|
|||
| Nov 28th, 2003 12:13 AM | ||||
| ziggytrix |
I wanna be a ghost when I die, just so I can mess with people. There's probably some sort of union tho, with all kinds of rules about what I can and can't do in the afterlife. Curse you Undead Local #777!!!! |
|||
| Nov 27th, 2003 07:21 PM | ||||
| george |
who really cares? do you REALLY want to exist FOREVER???? i hope when i am dead i am dead and stay that way. |
|||
| Nov 27th, 2003 07:15 PM | ||||
| theapportioner | I just studied Aristotle's De Anima (On the Soul) in a class. In brief, Aristotle has a conception of soul that is not immortal but is in a sense a "life force", kind of like what is being talked about here. This energy thing strikes me as vitalism - the elan vital is kinda out of vogue, non? | |||
| Nov 27th, 2003 07:40 AM | ||||
| Sethomas |
Human beings are nothing more than sentient energy in a physical form. Along the same linese as Daddy Goat, you can't adopt one scientific concept without the will to subject it to a rigorous scientific framework. There is no scientific foundation whatsoever to the association of consciousness or sentience with energy, save the neural firings of our synapses. If there was such an energy, we most certainly would have found it by now since a great many people have searched for it. Therefore, you cannot apply the conservation of energy to the idea of the soul. Even if you could, that would raise the problem of from whence this energy comes. It couldn't just appear at conception or birth, or even during childhood development, because this would violate the same conservation of energy you wished to adopt. So, do parents pass it along to their offspring? If so, we would have to inductively reason that spouses who bear a great number of children are in some way less conscious than the general population. Obviously, that's just silly. |
|||
| Nov 27th, 2003 12:36 AM | ||||
| Big Papa Goat |
A highly evolved organism posessing a brain with a highly convoluted frontal lobe, allowing us to have the sufficient number of neural connections for reason, allowing us to respond to and manipulate our environment creatively. The result of this reasoning capacity is a desire to understand, and with limited abilities to assess our own physiology, we came up with the idea of the soul to seperate us from the other beings we recognized to be alive. That brings us to you, giving a pseudo-scientific term for the soul, "sentinent energy". That being said, I have fairly limited knowlege of neurology, so correct me if I'm wrong. |
|||
| Nov 27th, 2003 12:18 AM | ||||
| Immortal Goat | what else COULD we be? | |||
| Nov 26th, 2003 09:25 PM | ||||
| Big Papa Goat |
Unless we're not 'sentient energy'. 
|
|||
| Nov 26th, 2003 05:22 PM | ||||
| Immortal Goat | Human beings are nothing more than sentient energy in a physical form. Since that is the case, there HAS to be something like a soul, because energy is constant. It has no end. You cannot stop energy from existing, so therefor, when a person dies, that energy must live on in some form or another. Whether it is in a new body or in an afterlife, it must continue to exist. | |||
| Nov 26th, 2003 04:45 PM | ||||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
|||
| Nov 26th, 2003 02:15 PM | ||||
| Perndog | Way to bring in something from another thread and act like it was part of this conversation. | |||
| Nov 26th, 2003 01:08 PM | ||||
| Protoclown |
Seth, whenever I'm having doubts about soul, I just simply think of James Brown, and all those doubts melt away. And I thought it was "Accam's Razor". But I've seen it spelled so many different ways that I've never been clear on it. |
|||
| Nov 26th, 2003 08:26 AM | ||||
| Sethomas |
Flinging mud wasn't your intent? Excuse me? You have a funny tendency to read either too much or too little. The statement to which the above refers merely pointed out that I had no intent to initiate said loam projections. You started it all by yourself. Evaluate: Posted: Nov Wed 26, 2003 12:18 am Hello? Catholic? No afterlife? CHRISTIANITY IS BASED ON THE BELIEF OF AN AFTERLIFE! CHRIST EXISTED TO SAVE HUMANITY FROM SIN AND GRANT THEM ETERNAL GRACE IN HEAVEN! Here you dress yourself in condescension quite clearly. Not quite "mud flinging" enough for you? Advance to stage two: Posted: Nov Wed 26, 2003 12:38 am ...you take yourself way, way too seriously and you are painfully lacking a sense of humor. Here you're quite obviously trying to be derisive, though you have no talent for such a task. It is only after this afront that we encounter my: Posted: Nov Wed 26, 2003 12:42 am ...you illiterate cornfuck. ...An astute remark to which you admittedly took offense, thus substantiating my 1:27 am observation that you're a "hypersensitive prick". Now, as a metaphysician I have a great deal of regard for those of us who delve into the mysteries of the passage of time, a phenomenon that has baffled throughout the ages, but your clear disregard for proper respect for chronology is brash and stupid. Now if, as you say, starting a flame war with you was my initial intent, I would have started a thread based on how unimpressive and sophomoric your posts wreak, not on my beliefs of the nonexistence of the soul. Granted it's a cheap thrill to point out your logical shortcomings, this thread would be much tidier without your presence, since it's quite clear that you've presented no contribution of substance. Cheerio, dude. |
|||
| Nov 26th, 2003 02:40 AM | ||||
| Perndog |
Flinging mud wasn't your intent? Excuse me? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And I assumed you were asking if I had any thoughts of my own at all because that's the kind of attitude you've conveyed with every reply. Check. |
|||
| Nov 26th, 2003 02:27 AM | ||||
| Sethomas |
I said "I have thoughts of my own" because you asked if I did. I don't have thoughts of my own on this topic, but I do have thoughts in general. In chess tournaments, it's considered extremely rude to declare "check" because it makes the assumption that your opponent wasn't observant enough to notice it himself. Likewise, I didn't make the redundancy of asking you "do you have thoughts of your own pertaining to the topic at hand?" because I presumed an IQ above 70 from your end of the table. If someone in a phone booth asks you if you have a quarter, do you tell him the balance of your bank account? Please try and keep up. I responded to you labelling yourself a Catholic because I was confused A mind like yours... confused?! Christ, how is this possible!? I didn't feel like being polite about it. but... [You are a] Antagonistic jackass. If hypocrisy were fuel, you'd of invented cold fusion. You started flinging mud first Honestly, that wasn't my intent. More likely you're just a hypersensitive prick, so you just were the first to take offense. How is that any of my fault? |
|||
| Nov 26th, 2003 02:06 AM | ||||
| Perndog |
You said in your first reply to me: Have you any thoughts of your own? 1. I said "I have thoughts of my own" because you asked if I did. I don't have thoughts of my own on this topic, but I do have thoughts in general. 2. I responded to you labelling yourself a Catholic because I was confused and I didn't feel like being polite about it. That doesn't mean I care about the subject of this thread. 3. Ockham's Razor advises not to make any more assumptions than necessary. How does that relate to you thinking I'm full of shit because I said I have thoughts of my own? Am I assuming too much in believing that I have those thoughts? You started flinging mud first. Antagonistic jackass. |
|||
| Nov 26th, 2003 01:59 AM | ||||
| Sethomas |
Bubba: You'd be better to ask some fool who believes in it as to what is meant by "free will". The concept of which I'm speaking is basically the tenent that we are capable of making decisions without being compelled by conditions beyond our control. If I have Cartesian free will, I can decide whether or not I want to super-size my value meal without being coerced by my genetics and environmental upbringing. Is my sentient and concious mind not part of my physcial body? In the Cartesian view, it's not. I mentioned the ghost in the machine idea to that end. I believe that consciousness can be rationalized by physiology, so I do not subscribe to the ideas of free will. Want my opinions? Bring up something that doesn't inspire feelings of deepest indifference in me. So you responded to my labelling myself a Catholic because my personal beliefs are an issue close to your heart? And if you're so indifferent, how does your stance mesh with your statement "I have thoughts of my own"? Ockham's Razor dictates pretty clearly here that you're full of shit. |
|||
| Nov 26th, 2003 01:48 AM | ||||
| Perndog |
Why not, are you afraid you'll make yourself look stupid again? YAWN. How about since I don't care about this topic? Want my opinions? Bring up something that doesn't inspire feelings of deepest indifference in me. |
|||
| Nov 26th, 2003 01:42 AM | ||||
| Sethomas |
That's why I pointed out the estrangement in which I've placed myself, as well as incongruencies between my beliefs and the Roman Catholic rubric the copy of which I have sitting right beside my printer, you illiterate cornfuck. but Catholic you are not unless you follow their dogma. You're wrong about that Yoda, because I could quite easily define to what Rite of Catholicism I belong, or invent my own. Not all Catholics are Roman rite, so abiding to the Catechism is a subjective necessity. I have thoughts of my own. That doesn't bear on this discussion. Why not, are you afraid you'll make yourself look stupid again? |
|||
| Nov 26th, 2003 01:41 AM | ||||
| CaptainBubba |
Quote:
Beyond the utilities of the body - An Internal or inherent power; capacity of acting, operating, or producing an effect, whether exerted or not, which cannot be exerted nor detected. by which our free will is spelled out - Define Free Will please. Then please, regardless of definiton explain how it can be "spelled out" through the previous definition. and we continue to exist beyond death - But assuming the soul is the only part or, rather, connection to us, that exists afterward then what are we? Is my sentient and concious mind not part of my physcial body? |
|||
| Nov 26th, 2003 01:34 AM | ||||
| Perndog |
I have thoughts of my own. That doesn't bear on this discussion. The nature of Catholicism is not open for dispute, there is an established Catholic church with very strictly defined tenets. I don't mind if you call yourself Christian, but Catholic you are not unless you follow their dogma. |
|||
| Nov 26th, 2003 01:26 AM | ||||
| Sethomas |
So I don't fit your definition of Christian. I certainly know that I don't agree with everything in the Catechism. So what! Have you any thoughts of your own? Descartes believed in an energy that exists beyond the utilities of the body, by which our free will is spelled out and we continue to exist beyond death. Some guy in the 20th century called it "the ghost in the machine". I suppose that's a satisfactory starting point for consideration, Bubba. |
|||
| Nov 26th, 2003 01:18 AM | ||||
| Perndog | Hello? Catholic? No afterlife? CHRISTIANITY IS BASED ON THE BELIEF OF AN AFTERLIFE! CHRIST EXISTED TO SAVE HUMANITY FROM SIN AND GRANT THEM ETERNAL GRACE IN HEAVEN! | |||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||||
