PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Question from Pro-Life/Creationists:


Frankie
10-14-2008, 02:43 PM
With the fact that man has cloned animals already, it stands to reason that cloning people in the near future is inevitable. When that happens is the man-made clone possessive of any soul/life? I just want to know your POV.

Donger
10-14-2008, 02:45 PM
With the fact that man has cloned animals already, it stands to reason that cloning people in the near future is inevitable. When that happens is the man-made clone possessive of any soul/life? I just want to know your POV.

You mean "for" not "from," right?

Frankie
10-14-2008, 02:46 PM
You mean "for" not "from," right?

I thought both were acceptable. But that's not the point anyway.

phisherman
10-14-2008, 03:25 PM
donger is a stickler for proper word selection.

he means well; he has to, with a quote from Real Genius as his signature.

Garcia Bronco
10-14-2008, 03:28 PM
With the fact that man has cloned animals already, it stands to reason that cloning people in the near future is inevitable. When that happens is the man-made clone possessive of any soul/life? I just want to know your POV.

Cloning people will be a bad, bad idea.

Programmer
10-14-2008, 03:32 PM
With the fact that man has cloned animals already, it stands to reason that cloning people in the near future is inevitable. When that happens is the man-made clone possessive of any soul/life? I just want to know your POV.

We really want to do this considering the success they have had with the animals.

I honestly don't think it's possible, but whatever turns your spigot.

Silock
10-14-2008, 03:35 PM
Cloning is a bad, bad idea, as has been said.

With that said, though, I think that any human clone would have a soul. It's not their fault they were cloned. I believe in evolution, and that all humans have a soul, so to me, there is no difference in the way they were created because it is all from God.

VAChief
10-14-2008, 03:38 PM
We really want to do this considering the success they have had with the animals.

I honestly don't think it's possible, but whatever turns your spigot.

It will be possible, there is not doubt in my mind, we are living in exponential scientific times. 10 years ago the genome project seemed daunting.

Now wheter we should is certainly up for debate as well.

Pitt Gorilla
10-14-2008, 03:42 PM
Clone Dwight Howard.

Donger
10-14-2008, 03:45 PM
Is the clone white? If so, then the answer is no.

Programmer
10-14-2008, 03:46 PM
It will be possible, there is not doubt in my mind, we are living in exponential scientific times. 10 years ago the genome project seemed daunting.

Now wheter we should is certainly up for debate as well.

I have no doubts the possibility exists, but I don't think cloning is a good idea from various standpoints. Would someone try to Clone the "perfect human" as the Nazi's tried to form the perfect specimen?

Who would decide what DNA would be used to create this "person"? The quality control issue is one that cannot be left out of the equation.

If it were a choice I could vote on my vote would be no. Whether we are perfect in any manner is not up to us and surely not up to someone that is fallable.

Programmer
10-14-2008, 03:48 PM
Is the clone white? If so, then the answer is no.

First, I don't think cloning should be done, but what's wrong with white? They are part of the only race on the earth.

BigCatDaddy
10-14-2008, 04:21 PM
.

Programmer
10-14-2008, 04:24 PM
.
??????????????????????????????????????

Frankie
10-14-2008, 04:33 PM
Cloning people will be a bad, bad idea.

But it's gonna happen. So then what?

Cannibal
10-14-2008, 04:38 PM
I have read about cloning/growing of human organs like the heart, lungs, kidney's, liver etc.

I'd be for that if they can actually do it without ramifactions.

jidar
10-14-2008, 04:39 PM
Is the clone white? If so, then the answer is no.

Don't confuse soul with rhythm.

I've got soul when I eat soul food and listen to jazz music.

Taco John
10-14-2008, 04:41 PM
With the fact that man has cloned animals already, it stands to reason that cloning people in the near future is inevitable. When that happens is the man-made clone possessive of any soul/life? I just want to know your POV.

If the clone has the capacity for reason, then yes.

ClevelandBronco
10-14-2008, 05:03 PM
Is the clone white? If so, then the answer is no.

Great freaking answer.

tiptap
10-14-2008, 07:25 PM
We had the discussion on whether twins shared the same soul. They, identical twins, are the natural clones. The only difference with scientific clones will be the time difference in growing up.

For those of us that are satisfied as to the validity of Evolution, the idea of cloning is a BIG step backwards. That is the reproductive activity for prokaryotic cells. You know bacteria. The advantage of quick evolutionary advancement would be lost. So it is not good biology, just like Eugenics, is not a great idea for similar reasons. It is too easy to remove diversity in the gene pool.

Frankie
10-14-2008, 08:36 PM
If the clone has the capacity for reason, then yes.

So is it a soul given to the body by God?

I really am not trying to make a point to annoy. I'm very curious how the religious folks will define it.

Sully
10-14-2008, 08:40 PM
So is it a soul given to the body by God?

I really am not trying to make a point to annoy. I'm very curious how the religious folks will define it.

I believe so.

Frankie
10-14-2008, 08:41 PM
We had the discussion on whether twins shared the same soul. They, identical twins, are the natural clones. The only difference with scientific clones will be the time difference in growing up.

For those of us that are satisfied as to the validity of Evolution, the idea of cloning is a BIG step backwards. That is the reproductive activity for prokaryotic cells. You know bacteria. The advantage of quick evolutionary advancement would be lost. So it is not good biology, just like Eugenics, is not a great idea for similar reasons. It is too easy to remove diversity in the gene pool.

I totally agree that cloning full humans is a problematic idea that will complicate things badly. But you know that someone will eventually do it. I am hoping though that cloning body parts will make for a lot of cure that are impossible now. Just think, as an example, a person with an enlarged heart hoping for a transplant can receive his own new heart to replace the bad one.

Frankie
10-14-2008, 08:43 PM
I believe so.

Then God won't mind if man creates another in his own image? It gets a little confusing creation-wise, doesn't it?

Zebedee DuBois
10-14-2008, 09:16 PM
I think they should clone a Beyonce for each of us.

irishjayhawk
10-14-2008, 09:17 PM
Cloning is a bad, bad idea, as has been said.

With that said, though, I think that any human clone would have a soul. It's not their fault they were cloned. I believe in evolution, and that all humans have a soul, so to me, there is no difference in the way they were created because it is all from God.

I see an inherent paradox here.

Cloning is a bad, bad idea. Yet, they were created by God.

Does God have bad ideas?

irishjayhawk
10-14-2008, 09:19 PM
Great freaking answer.

You finally caught a grammatical error. Good job! I shall try harder.

Iowanian
10-14-2008, 10:01 PM
I believe the first person cloned, will be the first person without a soul....and crack a seal of the 7 signs.

splatbass
10-14-2008, 10:24 PM
Would someone try to Clone the "perfect human"

I hope they start with this one.

ClevelandBronco
10-15-2008, 01:08 AM
You finally caught a grammatical error. Good job! I shall try harder.

I wasn't proud of finding a grammatical error. I was amused that you admitted knowing nothing about the subject, yet you continued to lecture about it.

Perhaps your pride on a subject that you don't understand is the problem.

Silock
10-15-2008, 03:52 AM
I see an inherent paradox here.

Cloning is a bad, bad idea. Yet, they were created by God.

Does God have bad ideas?

Cloning in and of itself isn't bad. But, human beings aren't perfect, and inevitably, someone will use cloning for a terrible purpose.

irishjayhawk
10-15-2008, 09:35 AM
I wasn't proud of finding a grammatical error. I was amused that you admitted knowing nothing about the subject, yet you continued to lecture about it.

Perhaps your pride on a subject that you don't understand is the problem.

Weird. I recall lecturing about money flow which is basic. And I called Roy out.

I guess I don't remember lecturing about it. All is well, though.

irishjayhawk
10-15-2008, 09:37 AM
Cloning in and of itself isn't bad. But, human beings aren't perfect, and inevitably, someone will use cloning for a terrible purpose.

So, essentially, if we use cloning for bad it's our mistake. When good, it's god's doing?

KILLER_CLOWN
10-15-2008, 09:37 AM
Why exactly do we need to clone anything? Because we all grew up watching sci-fi movies and watching horror movies?

Saulbadguy
10-15-2008, 09:38 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/Parts_The_Clonus_Horror_%28poster%29.jpg

Sully
10-15-2008, 09:41 AM
Then God won't mind if man creates another in his own image? It gets a little confusing creation-wise, doesn't it?

I don't know what God would "think" about the issue. I don't know whether God would gift that clone with a soul, or whether God would damn its creator. I don't know. I do know I'm uncomfortable talking about God, and giving him anthropomorhic-like proceses.
However, as far as I know, there isn't much that God has "said" on the topic. I guess between God's followers, we need to flesh out how clones would fit into God's "plan" for what the world should be.
ie: Is it in the best interests for people to have far extended lives?
What impact does that have on the Earth?
What is the origin--> growth of a soul?
etc..

Definitely complicated...but very interesting.

Frankie
10-15-2008, 10:14 AM
Why exactly do we need to clone anything? Because we all grew up watching sci-fi movies and watching horror movies?

That's not the point. I hope we never clone an entire human being (unless of course it's me and they can somehow transfer all of my consciousness into my new 25 year old body ;)). Seriously it would be great if we could have our own limbs, heart, whatever, cloned and replaced. That said, whether we like it or not SOMEONE will clone an entire human being, for maybe sinister reasons. So based on that as inevitable, the question is if that clone has a God-given soul as people of faith define it , or just a consciousness as science does.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-15-2008, 10:22 AM
That's not the point. I hope we never clone an entire human being (unless of course it's me and they can somehow transfer all of my consciousness into my new 25 year old body ;)). Seriously it would be great if we could have our own limbs, heart, whatever, cloned and replaced. That said, whether we like it or not SOMEONE will clone an entire human being, for maybe sinister reasons. So based on that as inevitable, the question is if that clone has a God-given soul as people of faith define it , or just a consciousness as science does.

I would rather not even have to go there, I do not understand why we need to clone animals, plants or any living thing. Nature seems to have taken care of everything we need why do we feel the need to make it more perfect? Do we really need GM foods? This may seem close-minded but we will never have the ability to live forever in our current physical form.

cookster50
10-15-2008, 10:57 AM
With the fact that man has cloned animals already, it stands to reason that cloning people in the near future is inevitable. When that happens is the man-made clone possessive of any soul/life? I just want to know your POV.

Sure, why the heck not?

mlyonsd
10-15-2008, 11:12 AM
With the fact that man has cloned animals already, it stands to reason that cloning people in the near future is inevitable. When that happens is the man-made clone possessive of any soul/life? I just want to know your POV.

ACORN will make sure all of them, including the ones that don't turn out just right and are twits, are registered democrats.

Silock
10-15-2008, 11:12 AM
So, essentially, if we use cloning for bad it's our mistake. When good, it's god's doing?

I didn't exactly say it was "God's doing." I said that it was a product of God's creation, much like evolution or the creation of pharmaceuticals.

irishjayhawk
10-15-2008, 02:00 PM
I didn't exactly say it was "God's doing." I said that it was a product of God's creation, much like evolution or the creation of pharmaceuticals.

Right, but if the creation is "from god" then can there really be a bad creation?

Silock
10-15-2008, 02:14 PM
Right, but if the creation is "from god" then can there really be a bad creation?

It is what it is, much like the debate over "free will."

tooge
10-15-2008, 02:18 PM
God gives us the reasoning ability to distinguish between good ideas and bad ones. I am certain that if all the right decisions were made involving every idea ever conceived by mankind, then the world would be a truly peaceful place. I mean, God gave man the intellect to make beer. I am fairly certain God didn't intend for us to all puke our guts out on our 21st birthday though. Get it.

King_Chief_Fan
10-15-2008, 03:38 PM
I would rather not even have to go there, I do not understand why we need to clone animals, plants or any living thing. Nature seems to have taken care of everything we need why do we feel the need to make it more perfect? Do we really need GM foods? This may seem close-minded but we will never have the ability to live forever in our current physical form.

GM foods are required to get the yields that are needed to feed the world. GM foods are the most tested of any products and have yet to be proven that they are different from others.
God given knowledge to do good things, sometimes turns to bad things. Nuclear power is a wonderful thing....nuclear weapons not so much.
GM foods a good thing, GM animals and people, not so much.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-15-2008, 04:07 PM
GM foods are required to get the yields that are needed to feed the world. GM foods are the most tested of any products and have yet to be proven that they are different from others.
God given knowledge to do good things, sometimes turns to bad things. Nuclear power is a wonderful thing....nuclear weapons not so much.
GM foods a good thing, GM animals and people, not so much.

and thank you for that bogus information big agribusiness.

King_Chief_Fan
10-15-2008, 04:13 PM
and thank you for that bogus information big agribusiness.

you will have to prove it is bogus mr. organic farmer

KILLER_CLOWN
10-15-2008, 04:21 PM
you will have to prove it is bogus mr. organic farmer

I suppose the rise in just about every form of disease puzzles no one, move along nothing to see here.

There has been some discussion among readers as to whether this outrageous story is true. Once again, it seems that truth really is stranger than fiction, as these reports do, in fact, appear to be for real.

However, they are referring to events that happened back in 1999. The archived articles -- probably because of the extreme irony they present -- have made a recent resurgence in the media, which is why Monsanto is now claiming that the reports are false.

It is telling, indeed, when your own catering company decides to ban the frankenfoods your biotech company is promoting as safe to the rest of the world.

The Problem With Genetically Modified (GM) Food

People around the world have joined forces to reject GM foods and crops because of the grave dangers they present to your health and the future of your food supply.

Not so in the United States, where many of you are not even aware that you likely eat GM foods everyday; some 70 percent of foods in grocery stores contain them, and no labeling is required!

There have been no safety studies conducted that prove GM foods are safe. To the contrary, dicing and splicing the components of your food supply into never-before-introduced combinations has been found to:

Cause cancer

Contribute to food allergies

Possibly cause damage to your immune system

Create super-viruses

Meanwhile, the traits from GM crops can get passed on to other non-GM crops. This means that a crop engineered to contain a vaccine, or to be sterile, could easily taint an entire region, and eventually the entire world.

Monsanto: The Poster Child for Manipulation and Corporate Greed

Monsanto has succeeded in patenting their own GM seeds.

They have essentially patented life forms for the first time in history without a vote of the people or Congress. This makes Monsanto able to let new life forms loose on the land without long-term testing of the health effects nor any real government controls, including labeling of foods.

Why would Monsanto want to patent seeds?

To ultimately stop the ancient practice of seed-saving, in which farmers use the seeds from this year’s harvest to plant next year’s crops. This is the traditional way food is grown. Any farmer who purchases seeds from one of Monsanto’s patented lots, however, would be forced to purchase new seeds every year, under penalty of law. If the farmer can’t afford new seeds, and many can’t, they will be forced to give up their livelihood.

To control things even further, biotech companies have created terminator seeds, which actually prevent themselves from reproducing unless a certain chemical is applied to the crop.

If terminator seeds are used by Monsanto on a large-scale basis, it will likely inevitably lead to famine and starvation on a worldwide basis. Billions of people on the planet are supported by farmers who save seeds from the crops and replant these seeds the following year.

Yet, once terminator seeds are released into a region, the trait of seed sterility could be passed to other non-GM crops, making most or all of the seeds in the region sterile.

Please, if you are not yet familiar with the major scandal and manipulation that is going on right now with GM foods, set aside 90 minutes and watch The Future of Food.

It is one of the best documentaries I have ever viewed, and it will shock you to understand the very real threat that future generations are facing. Please also pass this very important video on to your family and friends.

For now, GM foods require no labels in the United States, but one of the best ways you can voice your opposition to this practice (and protect your health) is to not purchase GM products. How do you know if your food is genetically modified? This past article has all the information you need to avoid genetically modified foods like the plague.
How do you know if your food is genetically modified? Drop in at Jeffrey Smith's website www.responsibletechnology.org) for more information on how to protect yourself and your loved ones, and how to identify which foods you may be using that are GM foods.









Monsanto Workers Ban GMO Foods From Their Own Cafeteria


The staff cafeteria at biotech-crop Monsanto’s UK headquarters reportedly banned GM foods from the menu back in 1999.

The private catering company running the canteen, Sutcliffe Catering, owned by Granada Food Services, told its clients, including Monsanto, that it would no longer use foods containing GM soya or maize because of “customer concerns” about the technology.

“We have taken the steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve,” Granada told its customers.

Tony Combes, Monsanto‘s director of corporate affairs, said the caterer’s decision was no reflection on Monsanto, but was rather a “blanket ban” covering all of its customers. He maintained that Monsanto staff members happily ate GM foods.

"We believe in choice. At our Cambridge restaurant there is a notice which says that some products may contain GM ingredients, because our staff are happy to eat products sprayed with fewer chemicals," Combes said in 1999.

Reports of these 1999 events have recently resurfaced in the media. In response, Monsanto’s head of external affairs at the UK headquarters said that the information is untrue.

“[The] Monsanto UK office does not even have a catering service. Our former staff restaurant was closed in 2003 when we sold our wheat breeding business, but even prior to that we displayed a sign that the policy was NOT to exclude food from GM sources,” he said.


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/10/monsanto-workers-ban-gmo-foods-from-their-own-cafeteria.aspx

King_Chief_Fan
10-15-2008, 04:38 PM
I don't think your posting of unscientific information provides much to the argument.
There is more speculation than proof in those claims.

I can get you the other spin but I am sure you are not interested.

We will have to agree to disagree.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-15-2008, 04:42 PM
I don't think your posting of unscientific information provides much to the argument.
There is more speculation than proof in those claims.

I can get you the other spin but I am sure you are not interested.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Sure whatever supports the world depopulation agenda.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jNezTsrCY0Q&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jNezTsrCY0Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

KILLER_CLOWN
10-15-2008, 04:48 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WVi-hmViOCM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WVi-hmViOCM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

tiptap
10-15-2008, 04:52 PM
I like your Revelation quote. I use to line up the churches of Asia Minor with the following chapters of Revelation. That is depending on how much the Church mimics any of the Asian churches then the following consequence takes place. That Revelation isn't a single end time notion it is presenting several based upon how The Church acts through time.

Calcountry
10-15-2008, 04:55 PM
God gives us the reasoning ability to distinguish between good ideas and bad ones. I am certain that if all the right decisions were made involving every idea ever conceived by mankind, then the world would be a truly peaceful place. I mean, God gave man the intellect to make beer. I am fairly certain God didn't intend for us to all puke our guts out on our 21st birthday though. Get it.Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery.

I am quite certain of that.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-15-2008, 04:58 PM
The Health Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/94d-KVorSHM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/94d-KVorSHM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

sorry to hijack your thread Frankie. ;)

Frankie
07-08-2012, 09:57 PM
Sorry to up this thread again Phil, but I ran across it while searching for anther thread and noticed that not many people have directly answered the question. I think the topic deserves more discussion.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2012, 10:08 PM
But it's gonna happen. So then what?

They should be stoned. Not like with weed. With rocks.

cosmo20002
07-08-2012, 10:16 PM
With the fact that man has cloned animals already, it stands to reason that cloning people in the near future is inevitable. When that happens is the man-made clone possessive of any soul/life? I just want to know your POV.

Some of the non-clones seem to lack a soul.

Chiefshrink
07-08-2012, 10:39 PM
Can we clone our Chiefs a HOF QB ? And who would you like it to be?

KILLER_CLOWN
07-08-2012, 11:37 PM
We do NOT create, we merely manipulate and so does Satan. So take that Fwiw.

mlyonsd
07-09-2012, 08:01 AM
Sorry to up this thread again Phil, but I ran across it while searching for anther thread and noticed that not many people have directly answered the question. I think the topic deserves more discussion.You rebel you.

patteeu
07-09-2012, 11:46 AM
Sorry to up this thread again Phil, but I ran across it while searching for anther thread and noticed that not many people have directly answered the question. I think the topic deserves more discussion.

What pro-life/creationist is asking the question?

Frankie
07-09-2012, 12:00 PM
You rebel you.

Guilty as charged. :D

Setsuna
07-09-2012, 12:43 PM
With the fact that man has cloned animals already, it stands to reason that cloning people in the near future is inevitable. When that happens is the man-made clone possessive of any soul/life? I just want to know your POV.

My point of view is that it is hard to say. Though I wouldn't like to find out. I mean honestly, if you clone someone, that just makes another group of people that will be discriminated against and it's just needless conflict. And what if the cloned person wanted to take up a belief and yet there is no where to validate their existence except science. How much of a mind**** would that be? Leave it alone, really. No good can come of it for anyone, even the "clones" themselves. Then again the Rapture may happen before cloning humans becomes fully possible.

patteeu
07-09-2012, 12:46 PM
Just watch Blade Runner and you'll have your answer.

alnorth
07-09-2012, 01:09 PM
Tossing my answer into this ancient thread, even though I'm neither pro-life nor creationist.

Since there is no God, and the concept of a "soul" going off into an "afterlife" in the traditional religious sense does not exist, no, a clone would not have a soul. Neither does anyone else.

Cloning humans would be a very, very bad idea because it would be difficult at best for the clone to grow up sane and healthy. Identical twins already have a bit of a "I'm a unique person" complex with trying to be different, imagine if your whole life is basically a scientific experiment with media occasionally poking a camera and microphone into your face.

InChiefsHell
07-09-2012, 01:18 PM
Tossing my answer into this ancient thread, even though I'm neither pro-life nor creationist.

Since there is no God, and the concept of a "soul" going off into an "afterlife" in the traditional religious sense does not exist, no, a clone would not have a soul. Neither does anyone else.

Cloning humans would be a very, very bad idea because it would be difficult at best for the clone to grow up sane and healthy. Identical twins already have a bit of a "I'm a unique person" complex with trying to be different, imagine if your whole life is basically a scientific experiment with media occasionally poking a camera and microphone into your face.

Since you are neither prolife or a creationist, what is the point of your answering the question? It's directed at those who believe in a soul and an afterlife...in this case anyway the question and who it is posed to renders your viewpoint moot.

But thanks for typing stuff.

Brock
07-09-2012, 01:26 PM
Since you are neither prolife or a creationist, what is the point of your answering the question? It's directed at those who believe in a soul and an afterlife...in this case anyway the question and who it is posed to renders your viewpoint moot.

But thanks for typing stuff.

Did you have a viewpoint on the topic at hand, or are you just here to be the thread police?

InChiefsHell
07-09-2012, 01:42 PM
Did you have a viewpoint on the topic at hand, or are you just here to be the thread police?

Oops, I thought I had posted my viewpoint. I guess not.

In any case, since I'm pro life and pseudo-creationist (I believe God did it, just not in 7 days etc) I would err on the side of caution and say all human beings have souls, even the ones we "create" through cloning. After all, it's not really creation but manipulation, but I still believe the life is to be respected and has a soul.

I also believe that the day we successfully clone a human is the end of us. For so many reasons.

And yes, I am the thread police.

RedNeckRaider
07-09-2012, 01:59 PM
Oops, I thought I had posted my viewpoint. I guess not.

In any case, since I'm pro life and pseudo-creationist (I believe God did it, just not in 7 days etc) I would err on the side of caution and say all human beings have souls, even the ones we "create" through cloning. After all, it's not really creation but manipulation, but I still believe the life is to be respected and has a soul.

I also believe that the day we successfully clone a human is the end of us. For so many reasons.

And yes, I am the thread police.

Just curious, what religion would you say you are? Nothing behind the question other than curiosity~

InChiefsHell
07-09-2012, 02:04 PM
Just curious, what religion would you say you are? Nothing behind the question other than curiosity~

Roman Catholic. And Fiercely proud of it! (Meaning of Life reference...)

RedNeckRaider
07-09-2012, 02:12 PM
Roman Catholic. And Fiercely proud of it! (Meaning of Life reference...)
Your post threw me off, I thought I recalled you were a Christian~

patteeu
07-09-2012, 02:12 PM
Your post threw me off, I thought I recalled you were a Christian~

:facepalm:

RedNeckRaider
07-09-2012, 02:15 PM
:facepalm:

Why that would cause you to face palm is rather odd~

vailpass
07-09-2012, 02:43 PM
Why that would cause you to face palm is rather odd~

All Catholics are Christian, though not all Christians are Catholic.

patteeu
07-09-2012, 03:07 PM
Why that would cause you to face palm is rather odd~

All Catholics are Christian, though not all Christians are Catholic.

.

RedNeckRaider
07-09-2012, 03:22 PM
All Catholics are Christian, though not all Christians are Catholic.

I understand the difference between Catholic and Protestant. I did not feel the need to address that in my reply. His post was short of a deistic view, while being short of conventional beliefs held by both Protestants and Catholics. His statement of "pseudo-creationist (I believe God did it, just not in 7 days etc)" threw me off a little. It is a widely held belief in conventional Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant) that God created to world 6 days and rested on the 7th. There is debate on the actual time frame of the 6 days. Hence my reply. It was not intended as confrontational post, which I felt I had made clear. When pat posted a face palm to lead someone to think I was out of line in some way I responded. I am 100% certain my knowledge of the subject of religion is equal to his, and would fancy a wager it exceeds his substantially~

patteeu
07-09-2012, 03:28 PM
I understand the difference between Catholic and Protestant. I did not feel the need to address that in my reply. His post was short of a deistic view, while being short of conventional beliefs held by both Protestants and Catholics. His statement of "pseudo-creationist (I believe God did it, just not in 7 days etc)" threw me off a little. It is a widely held belief in conventional Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant) that God created to world 6 days and rested on the 7th. There is debate on the actual time frame of the 6 days. Hence the my reply. It was not intended as confrontational post, which I felt I had made clear. When pat posted a face palm to lead someone to think I was out of line in some way I responded. I am 100% certain my knowledge of the subject of religion is equal to his, and would fancy a wager it exceeds his substantially~

Your knowledge of the subject sucks if you think a literal interpretation of the 6 day creation is widely held among Catholics. Even more so if you distinguish Catholics from the family of Christiandom.

RedNeckRaider
07-09-2012, 03:42 PM
Your knowledge of the subject sucks if you think a literal interpretation of the 6 day creation is widely held among Catholics. Even more so if you distinguish Catholics from the family of Christiandom.

LMAO Read my post again dipshit, I pointed out the time frame is debated. Also I never once typed anything that indicated Catholics are not Christians...man you are an idiot. Protestant means protesting the Catholic church, not protesting Catholics are not Christians. You are looking for a fight because I have criticized your hero for his strange beliefs, and the fact he is one of the most prolific political flip flopper's ever. Get over it LMAO

vailpass
07-09-2012, 03:42 PM
I understand the difference between Catholic and Protestant. I did not feel the need to address that in my reply. His post was short of a deistic view, while being short of conventional beliefs held by both Protestants and Catholics. His statement of "pseudo-creationist (I believe God did it, just not in 7 days etc)" threw me off a little. It is a widely held belief in conventional Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant) that God created to world 6 days and rested on the 7th. There is debate on the actual time frame of the 6 days. Hence the my reply. It was not intended as confrontational post, which I felt I had made clear. When pat posted a face palm to lead someone to think I was out of line in some way I responded. I am 100% certain my knowledge of the subject of religion is equal to his, and would fancy a wager it exceeds his substantially~

Cool by me, was just taking a stab at your question regarding Pat's facepalm thingy...cheers.
FWIW I can tell you with utmost surety that the literal interpretation of Creation is not universally subscribed to in the Catholic belief system. Far from it.

patteeu
07-09-2012, 03:47 PM
LMAO Read my post again dipshit, I pointed out the time frame is debated. Also I never once typed anything that indicated Catholics are not Christians...man you are an idiot. Protestant means protesting the Catholic church, not protesting Catholics are not Christians. You are looking for a fight because I have criticized your hero for his strange beliefs, and the fact he is one of the most prolific political flip flopper's ever. Get over it LMAO

Yeah, I read your posts. There's absolutely no excuse for you not understanding that Catholics are Christians (or alternatively, for not being able to convey that understanding in words in post 71). Feel free to just admit you botched that post and we can easily move on.

RedNeckRaider
07-09-2012, 04:02 PM
Yeah, I read your posts. There's absolutely no excuse for you not understanding that Catholics are Christians (or alternatively, for not being able to convey that understanding in words in post 71). Feel free to just admit you botched that post and we can easily move on.

In post 71 I said "I thought he was a Christian" in the context of "that is what I thought he was" meaning that Catholics are Christians. My reply to vailpass would clear that up to anyone without a bone to pick. So yes pat raise your arms in triumphant victory! I should have taken the time to remove your little strong hold LMAO

BucEyedPea
07-09-2012, 04:53 PM
With the fact that man has cloned animals already, it stands to reason that cloning people in the near future is inevitable. When that happens is the man-made clone possessive of any soul/life? I just want to know your POV.

Only the following would know: Prometheus, Mary Shelley or God.


Let's just hope no one clones Donger.

BucEyedPea
07-09-2012, 04:57 PM
Tossing my answer into this ancient thread, even though I'm neither pro-life nor creationist.

Since there is no God, and the concept of a "soul" going off into an "afterlife" in the traditional religious sense does not exist, no, a clone would not have a soul. Neither does anyone else.

Cloning humans would be a very, very bad idea because it would be difficult at best for the clone to grow up sane and healthy. Identical twins already have a bit of a "I'm a unique person" complex with trying to be different, imagine if your whole life is basically a scientific experiment with media occasionally poking a camera and microphone into your face.

You're contributing here intellectually is evidence you have a soul. The soul is the personality and one who is aware that he is here, emotes, thinks. questions, discerns including what is right or wrong and/or just know you are aware. It's not a physical thing but you can see the effects of it.

BucEyedPea
07-09-2012, 05:01 PM
Why exactly do we need to clone anything? Because we all grew up watching sci-fi movies and watching horror movies?

Gotta make enough people to match all that money that's still being printed to infinity. I mean who's gonna use it all?

BucEyedPea
07-09-2012, 05:02 PM
GM foods are required to get the yields that are needed to feed the world. GM foods are the most tested of any products and have yet to be proven that they are different from others.
God given knowledge to do good things, sometimes turns to bad things. Nuclear power is a wonderful thing....nuclear weapons not so much.
GM foods a good thing, GM animals and people, not so much.

Evidence is mounting that nature still does a better job. The world can still be fed without them.

BucEyedPea
07-09-2012, 05:04 PM
That's not the point. I hope we never clone an entire human being (unless of course it's me and they can somehow transfer all of my consciousness into my new 25 year old body ;)). Seriously it would be great if we could have our own limbs, heart, whatever, cloned and replaced. That said, whether we like it or not SOMEONE will clone an entire human being, for maybe sinister reasons. So based on that as inevitable, the question is if that clone has a God-given soul as people of faith define it , or just a consciousness as science does.

Consciousness is consciousness separate from the physical world, or not created by it, but operating in it. I don't think cloning creates consciousness but who knows if consciousness can't enter and use a cloned body? That is the question.

fan4ever
07-09-2012, 05:29 PM
Did we ever establish whether Frankie's kitty cat had a soul?

I would say if so, on the food chain side of things, a cloned human would therefore out-rank a kitty cat and have a soul.

There, try to take that theory apart.

RedNeckRaider
07-09-2012, 07:19 PM
You're contributing here intellectually is evidence you have a soul. The soul is the personality and one who is aware that he is here, emotes, thinks. questions, discerns including what is right or wrong and/or just know you are aware. It's not a physical thing but you can see the effects of it.

:rolleyes: evidence? You can say your belief, or faith leads you to conclude this. If you have evidence to the existence of souls please share it~

splatbass
07-09-2012, 09:29 PM
man you are an idiot.

Who would Jesus insult?

splatbass
07-09-2012, 09:30 PM
dipshit,

Again, who would Jesus insult?

BucEyedPea
07-09-2012, 09:31 PM
:rolleyes: evidence? You can say your belief, or faith leads you to conclude this. If you have evidence to the existence of souls please share it~

It's not faith at all. I gave you evidence in the post you quoted. However, you can't prove non-physical things the way you're implying.

patteeu
07-09-2012, 10:18 PM
Who would Jesus insult?

Again, who would Jesus insult?

You've got the wrong guy. He's not a bible beater.

Brainiac
07-09-2012, 10:22 PM
It's not faith at all. I gave you evidence in the post you quoted. However, you can't prove non-physical things the way you're implying.
If you can't prove it, it's faith.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-09-2012, 11:06 PM
If you can't prove it, it's faith.

So Mitt is really about faith, you can't prove he exists because he doesn't have a position on anything.

BucEyedPea
07-09-2012, 11:13 PM
If you can't prove it, it's faith.

Nope. Not necessarily. He didn't ask for proof though. He asked for evidence. I just said physical things can't be used to prove a non-physical thing.

Psychology means "study of the soul" — literally. There are paranormal studies on this.

splatbass
07-09-2012, 11:28 PM
You've got the wrong guy. He's not a bible beater.

Ok, I figured since it is usually Protestants that think that Catholics aren't Christian I assumed he was one. I'm neither.

RedNeckRaider
07-10-2012, 04:46 AM
Ok, I figured since it is usually Protestants that think that Catholics aren't Christian I assumed he was one. I'm neither.

You clearly cannot read. I had a post that caused some confusion. I made it perfectly clear that is not my belief~

RubberSponge
07-10-2012, 05:31 AM
Nope. Not necessarily. He didn't ask for proof though. He asked for evidence. I just said physical things can't be used to prove a non-physical thing.

Uh... uh...
And you claim to be college educated? Where from? Heritage College?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence?s=t&ld=1032

ev·i·dence 

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

RedNeckRaider
07-10-2012, 05:43 AM
Uh... uh...
And you claim to be college educated? Where from? Heritage College?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence?s=t&ld=1032

ev·i·dence 

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

I was going to respond, but it is pointless~

splatbass
07-10-2012, 10:03 AM
You clearly cannot read.

You clearly cannot write. When everyone misunderstands your post in the exact same way the problem is with your post.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2012, 10:09 AM
Uh... uh...
And you claim to be college educated? Where from? Heritage College?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence?s=t&ld=1032

ev·i·dence 

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

My point was that you sometimes need more than one piece of evidence for proof—final or complete proof. So I never claimed what I said as an absolute....just that there was evidence. There has been observations in the paranormal field and experiences by people who've temporarily died on operating tables.

Your own definition implies the same when it says " which tends to prove" or "ground for belief".
May I ask what part of the word "belief" you don't understand?

Definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief?s=t

Basic Dictionary Skills 102
You need them, snarky.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2012, 10:18 AM
I was going to respond, but it is pointless~

You need a course in Dictionary Skills 101 too. See Post 101. You need to learn nuance too. It's no wonder you're so difficult to communicate with and to.

Your real problem though, is that you are closed minded on spiritual matters. And I am not just talking religious things. Spiritual also applies to ideas and concepts beyond the physical world.

RedNeckRaider
07-10-2012, 10:19 AM
You clearly cannot write. When everyone misunderstands your post in the exact same way the problem is with your post.

LMAO Read my post again dipshit, I pointed out the time frame is debated. Also I never once typed anything that indicated Catholics are not Christians...man you are an idiot. Protestant means protesting the Catholic church, not protesting Catholics are not Christians. You are looking for a fight because I have criticized your hero for his strange beliefs, and the fact he is one of the most prolific political flip flopper's ever. Get over it LMAO

I understand the difference between Catholic and Protestant. I did not feel the need to address that in my reply. His post was short of a deistic view, while being short of conventional beliefs held by both Protestants and Catholics. His statement of "pseudo-creationist (I believe God did it, just not in 7 days etc)" threw me off a little. It is a widely held belief in conventional Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant) that God created to world 6 days and rested on the 7th. There is debate on the actual time frame of the 6 days. Hence my reply. It was not intended as confrontational post, which I felt I had made clear. When pat posted a face palm to lead someone to think I was out of line in some way I responded. I am 100% certain my knowledge of the subject of religion is equal to his, and would fancy a wager it exceeds his substantially~

In post 71 I said "I thought he was a Christian" in the context of "that is what I thought he was" meaning that Catholics are Christians. My reply to vailpass would clear that up to anyone without a bone to pick. So yes pat raise your arms in triumphant victory! I should have taken the time to remove your little strong hold LMAO

You will recieve no debate from me about my lack of writing skills. That said, these posts clearly would show even the slowest minds that is not my belief~

__________________

InChiefsHell
07-10-2012, 10:20 AM
Your post threw me off, I thought I recalled you were a Christian~

I actually think I understood your post...fwiw.

And as was written earlier, the Catholic Church does not hold to a strict 7 24 hour days as the length of creation, or 6000 years as the duration of time since creation. As a Catholic, you are free to believe that or not, the Church is silent on God's timing...that indeed is one of the myriad things which separates Catholics from other sects of Christianity.

RedNeckRaider
07-10-2012, 10:24 AM
You need a course in Dictionary Skills 101 too. See Post 101. You need to learn nuance too. It's no wonder you're so difficult to communicate with and to.

Your real problem though, is that you are closed minded on spiritual matters. And I am not just talking religious things. Spiritual also applies to ideas and concepts beyond the physical world.

No I am closed minded to proclaiming something as fact without evidence to support it. There is a difference between belief and fact~

BucEyedPea
07-10-2012, 10:29 AM
No I am closed minded to proclaiming something as fact without evidence to support it. There is a difference between belief and fact~

I said there is evidence and gave you an example. There's indications. Those examples are beyond the realm of your own consciousness, experiences and abilities. One being that you're close-minded on such matters.

The laws of the physical world do not work in frontiers beyond it.

RedNeckRaider
07-10-2012, 10:35 AM
I actually think I understood your post...fwiw.

And as was written earlier, the Catholic Church does not hold to a strict 7 24 hour days as the length of creation, or 6000 years as the duration of time since creation. As a Catholic, you are free to believe that or not, the Church is silent on God's timing...that indeed is one of the myriad things which separates Catholics from other sects of Christianity.

I am glad you did, as it could have been misunderstood. My reply to vail should have cleared it up. I have talked with and read of Protestants, who think the six days of creation refer to an unspecified length of time~

InChiefsHell
07-10-2012, 10:41 AM
I am glad you did, as it could have been misunderstood. My reply to vail should have cleared it up. I have talked with and read of Protestants, who think the six days of creation refer to an unspecified length of time~

Certainly, and there's no hard fast rule about what anyone really believes, but the Catholics have it defined in the Catechism, which is what we are "supposed" to believe...though many Catholics don't agree with it. That's a whole other issue.

patteeu
07-10-2012, 10:45 AM
Certainly, and there's no hard fast rule about what anyone really believes, but the Catholics have it defined in the Catechism, which is what we are "supposed" to believe...though many Catholics don't agree with it. That's a whole other issue.

What's the definition?

InChiefsHell
07-10-2012, 10:52 AM
What's the definition?

Of what, the Catholic teaching on Creation? Dude...I don't have the energy. Feel free to read the Catechism. The extremely basic gist is what I wrote earlier, the Church is silent on exact timing. But of course, as you may expect, there is MUCH MORE to it than that.

The Catechism is a huge compendium of the Church's teachings on everything. If ya wanna know what the Catholics teach and believe, or at least what we're supposed to teach and believe, consult the Catechism. Or other Magisterial documents.

RedNeckRaider
07-10-2012, 10:57 AM
What's the definition?

There are no fortune cookie type answers to any religion. Here is a useful site I have used in the past~

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=541862

patteeu
07-10-2012, 11:03 AM
Of what, the Catholic teaching on Creation? Dude...I don't have the energy. Feel free to read the Catechism. The extremely basic gist is what I wrote earlier, the Church is silent on exact timing. But of course, as you may expect, there is MUCH MORE to it than that.

The Catechism is a huge compendium of the Church's teachings on everything. If ya wanna know what the Catholics teach and believe, or at least what we're supposed to teach and believe, consult the Catechism. Or other Magisterial documents.

That's fine. I just wanted to confirm that your original statement doesn't diverge from any "widely held belief in conventional ... [Catholicism]" as RNR suggested.

Setsuna
07-10-2012, 11:23 AM
I thought this was about cloning? :hmmm:

InChiefsHell
07-10-2012, 11:25 AM
I thought this was about cloning? :hmmm:

That happens a lot around here...:D

RedNeckRaider
07-10-2012, 11:28 AM
That happens a lot around here...:D

I think there is an old rule somewhere that states: A thread in not considered legitimate until it has been hijacked, or something along those lines :)

mr. tegu
07-10-2012, 11:28 AM
Nope. Not necessarily. He didn't ask for proof though. He asked for evidence. I just said physical things can't be used to prove a non-physical thing.

Psychology means "study of the soul" — literally. There are paranormal studies on this.

It actually means "study of the mind"...

Dualism vs. monism is a debate psychologists will likely never come to agreement on because so much of a person's stance on the subject is based in their own personal belief and what they believe is necessary to study in order to understand human behavior.

Dualism is basically that our body and mind (consciousness/soul) are separate whereas monism is the belief that the mind (consciousness) and body are the same thing and that our consciousnees is simply a result of brain functions.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2012, 01:51 PM
It actually means "study of the mind"...
Not originally.

Origin:
< Greek, combining form of psȳchḗ breath, spirit, soul, mind; akin to pschein to blow ( see psykter)

Ever hear of Faculty Psychology?

Dualism vs. monism is a debate psychologists will likely never come to agreement on because so much of a person's stance on the subject is based in their own personal belief and what they believe is necessary to study in order to understand human behavior.

Dualism is basically that our body and mind (consciousness/soul) are separate whereas monism is the belief that the mind (consciousness) and body are the same thing and that our consciousness is simply a result of brain functions.

That's the view of modern psychology. Thanks to the Germans. Psychiatry is based on this, hence the use of medicine or drugs. -iatry means healing; medical practice.

But that is premised on this ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism


Despite that, there are psychiatrists that do acknowledge parapsychology based on patient testimonies held as the same from others who experienced medical body death but who maintained consciousness and could recall seeing the room and the doctors in it. I mean if a person's testimony in a court of law is considered part of the evidence then there's no reason such things here shouldn't. Besides, I defined my terms. I said the "soul" was the personality. Biology and consciousness interact with one another....it doesn't mean materialism alone is the sole explanation an idea pushed in Principles of Physiological Psychology by Wundt. Ontology is the study of "being."

It's a developing frontier that has yet fully completed its understanding.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2012, 02:11 PM
Life After Life: The Investigation of a Phenomenon—Survival of Bodily Death
Dr. Moody with a foreward by Dr. Kubler- Ross ( Swiss American Psychiatrist)


http://www.amazon.com/Life-After-Investigation-Phenomenon--Survival-Bodily/dp/0062517392/ref=la_B000APO81M_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341947219&sr=1-1Death

In this fascinating book, Dr. Moody reveals his groundbreaking study of more than one hundred people who experienced "clinical death" -- and were revived. Their amazing testimonies and surprising descriptions of "death" and "beyond" are so strikingly similar, so vivid and so overwhelmingly positive that they have changed the way we view life, death, and the spiritual hereafter.

RedNeckRaider
07-10-2012, 02:28 PM
Life After Life: The Investigation of a Phenomenon—Survival of Bodily Death
Dr. Moody with a foreward by Dr. Kubler- Ross ( Swiss American Psychiatrist)


http://www.amazon.com/Life-After-Investigation-Phenomenon--Survival-Bodily/dp/0062517392/ref=la_B000APO81M_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341947219&sr=1-1Death

In this fascinating book, Dr. Moody reveals his groundbreaking study of more than one hundred people who experienced "clinical death" -- and were revived. Their amazing testimonies and surprising descriptions of "death" and "beyond" are so strikingly similar, so vivid and so overwhelmingly positive that they have changed the way we view life, death, and the spiritual hereafter.
Secret Life: Firsthand, Documented Accounts of Ufo Abductions by David Michael Jacobs

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Life-Firsthand-Documented-Abductions/dp/0671797204/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1341947812&sr=1-4&keywords=Alien+abduction

In this fascinating book, David M. Jacobs, Ph.D reveals his groundbreaking study of more than one hundred people who experienced "alien abduction--and survived . Their amazing testimonies and surprising descriptions of "alien abduction" are so strikingly similar, so vivid and so overwhelming that they have changed the way we view alien abduction!

Frankie
07-10-2012, 02:41 PM
Cloning humans would be a very, very bad idea because it would be difficult at best for the clone to grow up sane and healthy. Identical twins already have a bit of a "I'm a unique person" complex with trying to be different, imagine if your whole life is basically a scientific experiment with media occasionally poking a camera and microphone into your face.

I agree with this. But I think cloning parts for replacement is a pretty good idea. With a cloned replacement for my damaged heart I COULD PLAY SOCCER AGAIN!
;)

Frankie
07-10-2012, 03:10 PM
Only the following would know: Prometheus, Mary Shelley or God.


Let's just hope no one clones Donger.

LMAO ... Well maybe for lab test?

BucEyedPea
07-10-2012, 03:21 PM
Secret Life: Firsthand, Documented Accounts of Ufo Abductions by David Michael Jacobs

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Life-Firsthand-Documented-Abductions/dp/0671797204/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1341947812&sr=1-4&keywords=Alien+abduction

In this fascinating book, David M. Jacobs, Ph.D reveals his groundbreaking study of more than one hundred people who experienced "alien abduction--and survived . Their amazing testimonies and surprising descriptions of "alien abduction" are so strikingly similar, so vivid and so overwhelming that they have changed the way we view alien abduction!

Irrelevant. Different category of thing....describes a physical event. Consciousness and awareness are not physical things. You're a materialist and can't get you mind outside of that construct.

RedNeckRaider
07-10-2012, 04:55 PM
Irrelevant. Different category of thing....describes a physical event. Consciousness and awareness are not physical things. You're a materialist and can't get you mind outside of that construct.

LMAO

petegz28
07-10-2012, 04:56 PM
Where did man get the DNA and such to use in the clones?

BucEyedPea
07-10-2012, 10:12 PM
LMAO

So you got nuthin'—as usual. Thanks for conceding, once again.:clap:

RedNeckRaider
07-11-2012, 11:27 AM
So you got nuthin'—as usual. Thanks for conceding, once again.:clap:

Yes buc I do. That is the amusing thing about you, the fact you count imaginary victories. If a person took the time to look up every single discussion you have taken place in, it would no doubt be logged as a victory in your mind. Your knowledge is amazing! No matter the subject you gleefully jump to the front on the line claiming to have all the answers. The Constitution, US economy, world economy foreign policy, heck someone can name a subject and good ole buc is an expert!

I could play your game and post links to writings or books by people with letters by their name proving how smart they are, who disagree with you. The book regarding survival of bodily death you pasted has no more creditability than books documenting testimonies about Bigfoot, UFO’s, and haunted houses. There are countless books written about these subjects by people with letters beside their names also. There is no winner or loser in discussing subjects like the one we are having now. It can neither be proved or disproved. By all means celebrate yet another imaginary victory buc~

BucEyedPea
07-11-2012, 11:38 AM
Whooosh! The whole point of my argument is over your head.

Then again, you can't argue consciousness with a materialist because the only thing that matters is physical matter.

The Constitution, US economy, world economy foreign policy, heck someone can name a subject and good ole buc is an expert!

No different than you at times or others in areas they feel they've studied or feel right about. I defend my stands not with a heavy reliance on personal attacks* and/or mockery with smilies, strawmen, logical fallacies as you do. That's a sign you can't defend your own stands or that you're a sheep that believes newspapers and tv only.

* unless it's been done to me earlier by a poster or currently.

RedNeckRaider
07-11-2012, 03:33 PM
Whooosh! The whole point of my argument is over your head.

Then again, you can't argue consciousness with a materialist because the only thing that matters is physical matter.



No different than you at times or others in areas they feel they've studied or feel right about. I defend my stands not with a heavy reliance on personal attacks* and/or mockery with smilies, strawmen, logical fallacies as you do. That's a sign you can't defend your own stands or that you're a sheep that believes newspapers and tv only.

* unless it's been done to me earlier by a poster or currently.

I clearly hit a nerve, as I noticed the edit in your reply. Nothing I posted was false. Count as many victories as you wish buc, you are not near as brilliant as you picture yourself. You are well read and certainly not dumb, that said you are not always right, no matter how much you want to be~

BucEyedPea
07-11-2012, 09:39 PM
I clearly hit a nerve, as I noticed the edit in your reply. Nothing I posted was false. Count as many victories as you wish buc, you are not near as brilliant as you picture yourself. You are well read and certainly not dumb, that said you are not always right, no matter how much you want to be~

You think editing a post is hitting a nerve? That's some silly non logic if I ever heard any. If you notice, 90% of my posts are edited. Since I've admitted before, I edit after I submit and never use preview. BTW, I don't believe I said what you posted was false. I also don't think I'm brilliant. I just think a point should be understood before one disagrees with it and to me arguing over such things is an intellectual pursuit —not a personal matter. However, this thread, is about opinions about the soul regarding if a cloned body takes on a soul. Not something where anyone can be solidly right or wrong on.

RedNeckRaider
07-12-2012, 06:46 AM
You think editing a post is hitting a nerve? That's some silly non logic if I ever heard any. If you notice, 90% of my posts are edited. Since I've admitted before, I edit after I submit and never use preview. BTW, I don't believe I said what you posted was false. I also don't think I'm brilliant. I just think a point should be understood before one disagrees with it and to me arguing over such things is an intellectual pursuit —not a personal matter. However, this thread, is about opinions about the soul regarding if a cloned body takes on a soul. Not something where anyone can be solidly right or wrong on.

I said precisely the same the thing in post #126 That drew a whoosh reply indicating, you are just too brilliant for me to understand. How many victories do you have now buc? Looking at your post count you are 40,625-0….in your mind~

BucEyedPea
07-12-2012, 08:26 AM
I said precisely the same the thing in post #126 That drew a whoosh reply indicating, you are just too brilliant for me to understand. How many victories do you have now buc? Looking at your post count you are 40,625-0….in your mind~

And I said something similar much earlier. Again whoosh! Over your head.

But seeing an alien, ufo or BigFoot are still not in the same category of thing. They are physical.
I said the personality was the soul. Defined my terms. So you don't have a personality because I can't see it physically?

RedNeckRaider
07-12-2012, 09:32 AM
And I said something similar much earlier. Again whoosh! Over your head.

But seeing an alien, ufo or BigFoot are still not in the same category of thing. They are physical.
I said the personality was the soul. Defined my terms. So you don't have a personality because I can't see it physically?

The is no difference in testimonies from people who believe they have been abducted by aliens, or witnessed Big Foot and people who believe they have experienced death and lived to relate a bright light, a feeling of peace or whatever. Was it their soul leaving their body, or just a reaction from low oxygen. I cannot see your personality so that means I don’t believe you have one lol Is it a soul, the incorporeal and immortal essence of a person or a behavior developed by experiences in their life. It falls into Russell’s teapot territory. Once again this can neither be proved or disproved~

BucEyedPea
07-12-2012, 09:42 AM
The is no difference in testimonies from people who believe they have been abducted by aliens, or witnessed Big Foot and people who believe they have experienced death and lived to relate the of a bright light, a feeling of peace or whatever. Was it their soul leaving their body, or just a reaction from low oxygen. I cannot see your personality so that means I don’t believe you have one lol Is it a soul, the incorporeal and immortal essence of a person or a behavior developed by experiences in their life. It falls into Russell’s teapot territory. Once again this can neither be proved or disproved~

No there is some difference — the topic. By it's very nature, consciousness, has to rely on reactions, testimony from people particularly if corroborated by others. That's what psychology studies. It's an inner world. Again, different subjects require different standards of proof. There's metaphysics meaning above physics. Testimonies are evidence—even in a court. They just get cross-examined. I originally said there was evidence, there's even more than I posted but it would have been too involved to post. Evidence that suggests there is something there. This is why it continues to be investigated by psychologists/psychiatrists.

I am not saying this to censure you, but you strike me as being anti-spiritual meaning thoroughly immersed in the philosophy of materialism. I find people in that camp, to be unable to process certain ideas—totally closed. They can't acknowledge that there might be other planes of existence. It's similar to debating with a socialist or leftist—they simply can't process certain ideas. It's foreign to them. The materialist is just as stubborn in their rightness about man only being matter as some religionist. It's a belief.

I say that because you immediately pre-judged my position with this statement: "evidence? You can say your belief, or faith leads you to conclude this. If you have evidence to the existence of souls please share it~"

I've told you I do not follow any religion but that I am more spiritual.

The medieval era was practically all spiritual with demons to explain bad mental states etc. The modern era, an era of materialism, is all physical. Somewhere, the truth lies between them. A person's mental ( for me spiritual ) state can even effect healing. That's another piece of evidence.