Human soul monopoly
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-11-2012, 02:49 PM
RE: Human soul monopoly
Many animals have emotions, because they have the same hormones, neuro transmitters and stuff as we do.

If I were to go to heaven, I would expect my previously departed dogs and cats to be there, or it wouldn't be heaven for me.

People like to class animals as unable to feel like us because it allows them to mistreat them without concern.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 02:54 PM
RE: Human soul monopoly
(29-11-2012 01:12 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  I think that is commonly accepted by theists that only humans possess souls (Bhudism would be an axception).

In fact, this is one of the main claims of monotheistic religions, per example. Here's the argument:

According to these people, souls are the source of emotions. Neurons are just the vehicle

Knowing that other animals have emotions, per example other primates, wouldn't that mean that they also possess a soul?

And if so, wouldn't this argument be sufficient to refute one of the main claims of monotheistic religions?

I really would not accept a counter-argument that we're the only ones with feelings. That would be just irrational.

What do you think?
I think that drugs, illegible and legal disprove that idea. Because the can create false emotions intense and as real as any other experience?

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 03:00 PM
RE: Human soul monopoly
(29-11-2012 01:12 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  I think that is commonly accepted by theists that only humans possess souls (Bhudism would be an axception).

In fact, this is one of the main claims of monotheistic religions, per example. Here's the argument:

According to these people, souls are the source of emotions. Neurons are just the vehicle

Knowing that other animals have emotions, per example other primates, wouldn't that mean that they also possess a soul?

And if so, wouldn't this argument be sufficient to refute one of the main claims of monotheistic religions?

I really would not accept a counter-argument that we're the only ones with feelings. That would be just irrational.

What do you think?

The idea that animals don't possess a soul is so humans feel justified in killing and consuming them. It someone said all living creatures (including plants animals, insects, reptiles, fish, etc) had souls there would be nothing for humans to consume.

However I believe that (most) animals -- insects, reptiles do have a brand of "morality" which is imbedded into their genetic code. Whether this is simply behavior or consciousness I really havent a clue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 03:04 PM
RE: Human soul monopoly
(29-11-2012 02:49 PM)Dom Wrote:  Many animals have emotions, because they have the same hormones, neuro transmitters and stuff as we do.

If I were to go to heaven, I would expect my previously departed dogs and cats to be there, or it wouldn't be heaven for me.

People like to class animals as unable to feel like us because it allows them to mistreat them without concern.

Exactly, which is why they are allowed to be subjects for experimentation, dissection. We had to dissect frogs and worms to pass our biology class. I cried. Lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
29-11-2012, 03:58 PM
RE: Human soul monopoly
(29-11-2012 03:00 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  The idea that animals don't possess a soul is so humans feel justified in killing and consuming them. It someone said all living creatures (including plants animals, insects, reptiles, fish, etc) had souls there would be nothing for humans to consume.
That's not necessarily true, I think. If I recall correctly, Native Americans believed that everything had a soul, more or less, though their definition was a little different. It didn't stop them from eating animals, it just made them keenly aware that they only killed what they needed and they respected the spirits of the animals as they released those spirits from the animals' dying bodies.

I imagine that if we had always been taught that everything had a soul, we would justify it as "God's plan" for us to send some animal souls to heaven so that we could consume their yummy flesh.

In any case, my fiancee wasn't vegan or even vegetarian. She eats meat despite believing that all living creatures have souls. She is ridiculously, strongly, devout so I can't even blame it on her not being serious in her convictions - she just reconciles it as the way God wants things to be.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 06:52 PM
RE: Human soul monopoly
Define "soul". Is it simply some core part of our consciousness/gestalt? If so, then it's a fairly arbitrary line drawn across the psyche, not so different from Freud's ego, and doesn't represent any mystical phenomenon. Is it some portion of our intelligence that survives death? If so, Hitchens did indeed have a soul and parts of it are scattered all across You-Tube, which suggests that claims by certain theists about its destination aren't far from the truth. (Are memes pieces of the soul, and is You-Tube a hellish place?) Is it simply the thing a being "has" that makes us say "this being has the dignity and right of existence and proper treatment"? In that case, the soul is not in the being itself, but in those judging that it has a soul.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 07:15 PM
RE: Human soul monopoly
(29-11-2012 03:58 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  
(29-11-2012 03:00 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  The idea that animals don't possess a soul is so humans feel justified in killing and consuming them. It someone said all living creatures (including plants animals, insects, reptiles, fish, etc) had souls there would be nothing for humans to consume.
That's not necessarily true, I think. If I recall correctly, Native Americans believed that everything had a soul, more or less, though their definition was a little different. It didn't stop them from eating animals, it just made them keenly aware that they only killed what they needed and they respected the spirits of the animals as they released those spirits from the animals' dying bodies.

Actually some native Americans believed if you consumed the animal's flesh, you took on some of that animals spirit (soul, essence).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 07:45 PM
RE: Human soul monopoly
Human soul monopoly?


Nah!


I can't go with that. Where's the proof?


When I passed 'go' I would have got my $200.


I didn't.




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 05:00 AM
RE: Human soul monopoly
(29-11-2012 01:12 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  I think that is commonly accepted by theists that only humans possess souls (Bhudism would be an axception).

In fact, this is one of the main claims of monotheistic religions, per example. Here's the argument:

According to these people, souls are the source of emotions. Neurons are just the vehicle

Knowing that other animals have emotions, per example other primates, wouldn't that mean that they also possess a soul?

And if so, wouldn't this argument be sufficient to refute one of the main claims of monotheistic religions?

I really would not accept a counter-argument that we're the only ones with feelings. That would be just irrational.

What do you think?

First I think you have to define what a soul is and then prove that we humans have souls. There is no evidence that souls exist, we are a product and function of our brains, when the brain dies so do we, I see no evidence for the afterlife, ghosts, souls, heaven or hell, etc. Feelings are not proof of a soul. Feelings like all emotions resonate in the brain.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: