# What does it mean to be human?



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2013)

What makes us human? Is there such thing as personhood?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> What makes us human?



The biological definition allows us to also seperate this....



stringmusic said:


> Is there such thing as personhood?



....and define rights.  In order to have superior rights over various other critters, one would think "personhood" elevates our status above the rest.  If we are simply a chance creation of evolution, our status should be no more valuable that the deer and turkeys we shoot, or the fish we catch.  How can rights be limited to one species over another if each species carries equal value in the grand scheme of things?  Or, is each species equally existing through chance?  If so, why would one species right to life and liberty trump that of another?  The only answer is personal morality without a god in the equation......and enforcing such rights is tricky.  I would have to side with peta in such a scenario 

To answer the question, as a believer: "our soul."


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> The biological definition allows us to also seperate this....
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Excellent post and great questions JB.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> What makes us human? Is there such thing as personhood?



Brother you sure jumped off the deep end early on a Monday morning.  I ain't even got both yes open yet.  I would say what makes us human (and different from the rest of the animal kingdom) is that we possess a body, a soul and a spirit.  I guess that constitutes personhood in that it not only allows us to think, will, act, but to interact with God.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Brother you sure jumped off the deep end early on a Monday morning.  I ain't even got both yes open yet.


LOL, I listened to a podcast by Andy Bannister this morning. 



> I would say what makes us human (and different from the rest of the animal kingdom) is that we possess a body, a soul and a spirit.  I guess that constitutes personhood in that it not only allows us to think, will, act, but to interact with God.



I concur.


----------



## David Parker (Jun 24, 2013)

Humanity, opposable thumb, reason, creativity, self-judgement.  All are qualities I only attribute to a human being.  Beyond that, not much different than the critters.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 24, 2013)

David Parker said:


> self-judgement.



 .????   Is that synonymous with a conscious?


----------



## David Parker (Jun 24, 2013)

Depends on everyone's definition.  I was thinking like feelings of shame and embarrassment.  I mean really, animals do stupid things and I don't see anything different in their perception of their actions?  Conscious would be more "right and wrong" no?


----------



## Mars (Jun 24, 2013)

I wrote a several page paper on this very topic for my Philosophy of Horror Films course in college. I will see if I can find it but the conclusion that I came to was that a you don't have to be human to be a person and some people aren't human. 

I concluded that in order to be a person, an entity  must posses:
-self recognition 
-capacity for emotion


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 24, 2013)

David Parker said:


> Depends on everyone's definition.  I was thinking like feelings of shame and embarrassment.  I mean really, animals do stupid things and I don't see anything different in their perception of their actions?  Conscious would be more "right and wrong" no?



Kinda obvious you don't have a very high regard for your fellow human beings.  Would you agree and do you view yourself and your loved ones in the same context?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 24, 2013)

Mars said:


> I wrote a several page paper on this very topic for my Philosophy of Horror Films course in college.



Your kidding?   There's actually a college course dedicated to that?  Amazing!!!


----------



## hummdaddy (Jun 24, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Kinda obvious you don't have a very high regard for your fellow human beings.  Would you agree and do you include yourself and your loved ones in the same context?



do you wonder out of here? most of this forum full of christians don't have a very high regard for their fellow human beings...


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jun 24, 2013)

For years, science has said we are simply a random collection of cells that just happened to collide by chance. 
From there, we just 'dance to our DNA.'
Its all genes and traits handed down. 

No different than any other life form.


----------



## JFS (Jun 24, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> "our soul."



What is a soul?

PS- spare me the Kia pictures.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 24, 2013)

JFS said:


> What is a soul?



The part of you that discusses things with you when comparing alternatives.  



JFS said:


> PS- spare me the Kia pictures.


----------



## Havana Dude (Jun 24, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> do you wonder out of here? most of this forum full of christians don't have a very high regard for their fellow human beings...



You mean those of us who oppose abortion? I'm confused, as I am sure you will point out. 

Let me guess. Since we are for the death penalty, how can we be against abortion? Right? Yes, much better to murder an innocent human being, than to put to death a useless piece of trash criminal.

Sorry to derail somewhat. I guess I have no regard for my fellow human beings


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 24, 2013)

I believe the mind is part of our flesh as animals have a mind and not a soul. Following sinful directions of the flesh is actually from the mind.
 Just as following your heart doesn't actually mean your heart.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 24, 2013)

I would like to hear some Hindu forum members explain how animals become a part of their religion and how human souls can enter animals and return to Earth.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 24, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I would like to hear some Hindu forum members explain how animals become a part of their religion and how human souls can enter animals and return to Earth.



http://hinduism.about.com/od/hinduism101/Hinduism_101.htm


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 24, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I would like to hear some Hindu forum members explain how animals become a part of their religion and how human souls can enter animals and return to Earth.



Your all disconnected, man.  Everything is one and we are all part of the oneness and I am he as you are me as you are he and we are all together.  You don't really understand what the soul is.  You've been jamming to the wrong tune.  Let yourself go and feel the energy.  "Split a piece of wood and I am there. Lift a stone and you will find God."


----------



## hummdaddy (Jun 25, 2013)

Havana Dude said:


> You mean those of us who oppose abortion? I'm confused, as I am sure you will point out.
> 
> Let me guess. Since we are for the death penalty, how can we be against abortion? Right? Yes, much better to murder an innocent human being, than to put to death a useless piece of trash criminal.
> 
> Sorry to derail somewhat. I guess I have no regard for my fellow human beings



no the christians who want a season to hunt blacks,muslims,liberals,and democrats
i call them the extremist chritian conservatives


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

This thread is not going well......


Can someone address the questions in post #2?

Does anyone disagree with post #13?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

Mars said:


> I wrote a several page paper on this very topic for my Philosophy of Horror Films course in college. I will see if I can find it but the conclusion that I came to was that a you don't have to be human to be a person and some people aren't human.
> 
> I concluded that in order to be a person, an entity  must posses:
> -self recognition
> -capacity for emotion



Do animals not posses those two things?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> a soul and a spirit.



If there's a difference, please explain.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

David Parker said:


> Depends on everyone's definition.  I was thinking like feelings of shame and embarrassment.  I mean really, animals do stupid things and I don't see anything different in their perception of their actions?  Conscious would be more "right and wrong" no?




My dog is embarrassed when she can't jump in to the bed of the truck. 

If she makes a mess out of something when I'm gone, she shows it. She walks up to the door with her head down before I even know what happened. 

When I get home and she hasn't gotten herself in trouble (most of the time) she smiles at me. Yes, smiles. The corners of her mouth go up and back and her forehead wrinkles. 

I see emotion and right and wrong every day. No, she won't be writing a iphone app any time soon.


----------



## Mars (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Do animals not posses those two things?



Yes they do. Many of us have trouble with the concept of a person. Person does not mean human any way you look at it. If you can define what a person is, the traits will not only apply to human people.


----------



## David Parker (Jun 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Kinda obvious you don't have a very high regard for your fellow human beings.  Would you agree and do you view yourself and your loved ones in the same context?



forgot one, judgement of others is a singularly human quality.  


I view everyone as an individual and as for my loved ones, I hold them in a higher regard than me and you.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> no the christians who want a season to hunt blacks,muslims,liberals,and democrats
> i call them the extremist chritian conservatives



Are you kidding me? I believe that a large number of christians would heavily prefer an open season to hunt atheists to any one of those. 

Actual open season is extreme.. but many christians would rather not lift their head toward someone that is atheist. Homeless and lost, in a foreign country and lost, following another religion and lost sure, but not atheist. Of course, that's a blanket statement that doesn't fit everyone.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

Mars said:


> If you can define what a person is, the traits will not only apply to human people.



Unless you add in the concept of a soul.


Do you personally treat an animal or plant the same as you treat your wife(if your married)?


----------



## Mars (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Unless you add in the concept of a soul.
> 
> 
> Do you personally treat an animal or plant the same as you treat your wife(if your married)?



Who says animals don't have souls? 

I'm not following the connection with animals and a spouse. Would you treat me the same as your wife? I certainly hope not.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

Mars said:


> Who says animals don't have souls?



Who says trees,tires,cars,computers etc don't have souls?


Sounds kinda pantheistic. Do you not find humans are a least a little different than other species?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

Mars said:


> I'm not following the connection with animals and a spouse. Would you treat me the same as your wife? I certainly hope not.



Good point.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

Mars said:


> I'm not following the connection with animals and a spouse.



If you're asserting that there is some sort of "personhood" as it relates to animals, how do you differentiate between treating a deer a certian way and treating another human the certian way? It seems you're putting them both on the same playing field.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

Mars said:


> I'm not following the connection with animals and a spouse. Would you treat me the same as your wife? I certainly hope not.



What gives a human natural "rights" that are not also assigned to trees, bugs, and fish?

If each has a common origin, with nothing but chance seperating the two, what basis is there for giving one preference over the other?


----------



## JFS (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Unless you add in the concept of a soul.



So I'll ask again, what is a soul?  Does it have mass? Energy?  Is there a pile of them waiting to inhabit future persons? Are they created by biological process?  Where in the body does the soul reside? 

Who came up with the idea that people have a soul and on what basis did they make that determination?


----------



## JFS (Jun 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> If each has a common origin, with nothing but chance seperating the two, what basis is there for giving one preference over the other?



One is making the rules and the other is not.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

JFS said:


> One is making the rules and the other is not.



By what right is that accomplished?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

JFS said:


> So I'll ask again, what is a soul?  Does it have mass? Energy?  Is there a pile of them waiting to inhabit future persons? Are they created by biological process?  Where in the body does the soul reside?
> 
> Who came up with the idea that people have a soul and on what basis did they make that determination?



A soul is the spiritual that inhabits the physical, it's what makes you a human and sets you apart from everything else in the world. They are created by God and I don't know where is resides in the body.

God came up with the idea that people have a soul and He made that determination because He is the One who puts the soul there.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

JFS said:


> So I'll ask again, what is a soul?



Answered a few posts back.



JFS said:


> Does it have mass?



No.



JFS said:


> Energy?



Yes.



JFS said:


> Is there a pile of them waiting to inhabit future persons?



Dunno.



JFS said:


> Are they created by biological process?



Perhaps motivated by such???



JFS said:


> Where in the body does the soul reside?



In.



JFS said:


> Who came up with the idea that people have a soul and on what basis did they make that determination?



I look at people, then look at animals, and trees and think.....one of these things is not like the others


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

JFS said:


> One is making the rules and the other is not.


 

Does a deer treat a coyote the same way that it treats its fawn... or its buck... Does a deer treat us as it treats its fawn? No. They don't have the ability to influence us quite like we do for them... especially on the highway. Does a tiger treat you like she treats her cub or her male? Nope... And in her element, she'll kill you. 

Again, I realize that in general, we are at the top of MOST chains. We can't live without a lot of animals and plants. Most of them would be better off without us.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

JFS said:


> One is making the rules and the other is not.


Your "one" here is plural, what if one(singular) person disagrees?


Can't get anymore arbitrary than that.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Your "one" here is plural, what if one(singular) person disagrees?
> 
> 
> Can't get anymore arbitrary than that.



I don't follow...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Brother you sure jumped off the deep end early on a Monday morning.  I ain't even got both yes open yet.  I would say what makes us human (and different from the rest of the animal kingdom) is that we possess a body, a soul and a spirit.  I guess that constitutes personhood in that it not only allows us to think, will, act, but to interact with God.



Would like to hear more on the soul and spirit being different.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I don't follow...



Humans can't simply make up rules, at least not on certian things.

If all of humanity decided that gravity no longer existed, jumping off a 10 story building is going to have the same effect. 

If humans and animals,trees, and everything else are created equal and through the exact same process, what gives humans anymore of a right than anything else in the world?

The fact is, humans are different than everything else in the known universe. We are not just a collection of random evolution that created DNA and genes, if we were, we could and would treat each other as such and nobody would bat an eye.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 25, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Are you kidding me? I believe that a large number of christians would heavily prefer an open season to hunt atheists to any one of those.
> 
> Actual open season is extreme.. but many christians would rather not lift their head toward someone that is atheist. Homeless and lost, in a foreign country and lost, following another religion and lost sure, but not atheist. Of course, that's a blanket statement that doesn't fit everyone.



I personally don't seperate non-believers into Atheist and believers of other Gods. God said they're both the same but I do agree that most Christians do have a different view of Atheist to say Jews or Hindus. Examples would be Freemasonry & the Boy Scouts allowing a belief in other Gods but not Atheist.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Humans can't simply make up rules, at least not on certian things.
> 
> If all of humanity decided that gravity no longer existed, jumping off a 10 story building is going to have the same effect.
> 
> ...



Just as each animal species is different than every other animal species. Owls can see much better at night than we can. Most birds can FLY... those things set them apart.

Who says we have any more rights than any other animals (other than in the bible). I don't know that is inherent anywhere. We seem to think we do, but I don't know that it's a right. Humans can't make up a rule that we have a right to rule the planet. I agree we can't just make up rules like that... but you're just making up different ones.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Just as each animal species is different than every other animal species. Owls can see much better at night than we can. Most birds can FLY... those things set them apart.


If all those things, including humans, are simply a sack of evolutionary genes, then every species is on equal ground. Humans are no different than trees or animals or bugs, but we know that's not true. I'm asking what makes humans, humans, what set us apart from everything else. What does it mean to be a person?



> Who says we have any more rights than any other animals (other than in the bible). I don't know that is inherent anywhere. We seem to think we do, but I don't know that it's a right. Humans can't make up a rule that we have a right to rule the planet. I agree we can't just make up rules like that... but you're just making up different ones.



Coming from the atheistic/agnostic worldview, nothing gives humans any more rights than that of a rock.

I understand that you don't believe in God, but I at least have a reason why humans have inherent worth and value and rocks don't.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> If all those things, including humans, are simply a sack of evolutionary genes, then every species is on equal ground. Humans are no different than trees or animals or bugs, but we know that's not true. I'm asking what makes humans, humans, what set us apart from everything else. What does it mean to be a person?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I completely see that we are different from other animals. I agree. We build giant buildings and roads and devastate landscapes. Beavers build things and knock down trees as well. Birds fly like super heros. We pick up our dog's poop with a bag. Which means that other animals are different from us too. It's all about perspective. They can do things we can't. We do things they can't. That doesn't mean that we are any more special than they are, or have any more rights to anything than they do.


I see more of a difference with rocks. I can more clearly see that rocks don't have this soul that you speak of, but I'm not convinced that if I have a soul, that a dog or horse can't have one.


What does it mean to be a person, can be asked similarly of an eagle. What does it mean to be an eagle. There are differences in those two answers, but I see no need for any divine difference.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> but I see no need for any divine difference.



There must be a basis for the difference if one's rights trump the other's.


----------



## Mars (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Who says trees,tires,cars,computers etc don't have souls?
> 
> 
> Sounds kinda pantheistic. Do you not find humans are a least a little different than other species?




Are trees, tires, cars, computers, etc capable of self recognition and emotion? And I am not referring to Mater from the Disney movie.

Humans are different that other animals in some ways but those traits are not necessary to be a person.


----------



## Mars (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> If you're asserting that there is some sort of "personhood" as it relates to animals, how do you differentiate between treating a deer a certian way and treating another human the certian way? It seems you're putting them both on the same playing field.



My response is based on the OP which was questioning the necessitates a person. To answers this question I will reference one of my previous post. I'm certain that your feelings for your family are different than your feelings for other people, how do you do that?



JB0704 said:


> What gives a human natural "rights" that are not also assigned to trees, bugs, and fish?
> 
> If each has a common origin, with nothing but chance seperating the two, what basis is there for giving one preference over the other?



I don't believe that all trees could be considered a person since as far as I know they are not self aware. I cant say for certain about fish and bugs. 

What do you mean by "natural rights"?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> There must be a basis for the difference if one's rights trump the other's.



I'm saying that those differences don't necessarily mean that one's rights trump the others. 

Just because we have conquered all other species doesn't mean that we have the right to. Assuming that it's our right is one of those rules that you can't just make up.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 25, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> do you wonder out of here? most of this forum full of christians don't have a very high regard for their fellow human beings...



Would you care to elaborate on that?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 25, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> no the christians who want a season to hunt blacks,muslims,liberals,and democrats
> i call them the extremist chritian conservatives



And I call that a stereotype.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

Mars said:


> My response is based on the OP which was questioning the necessitates a person. To answers this question I will reference one of my previous post. I'm certain that your feelings for your family are different than your feelings for other people, how do you do that?


Because I have a relationship with my family.


Do you assert that animals and humans are not inherently different? Obviously humans can do things animals cannot, and vice versa, but are they inherently different? Do you hunt?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I'm saying that those differences don't necessarily mean that one's rights trump the others.
> 
> Just because we have conquered all other species doesn't mean that we have the right to. Assuming that it's our right is one of those rules that you can't just make up.



So a roach crawling across the floor has the exact same rights as I do?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

Mars said:


> Are trees, tires, cars, computers, etc capable of self recognition and emotion? And I am not referring to Mater from the Disney movie.
> 
> Humans are different that other animals in some ways but those traits are not necessary to be a person.



So your conclusion is self recognition and emotion are traits exclusive to humans and animals therefore those are the traits that make us human?


BTW, your sig line is awesome!


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

Mars said:


> What do you mean by "natural rights"?



Those which are inalienable.  Or, why do I have a right to take the life of a chicken when an alternate course exists which leaves the chicken alive?

I got here the same way the chicken did........why do I get to make a life or death decision for the chicken?

For that matter, why do I get to smash rocks?  The rocks existence can only continue until I decide to smash it.

Without a soul, or a god, it boils down to a question of personal morality to which there is absolutely no basis......and, as I said initially, peta would have a very good point.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Just because we have conquered all other species doesn't mean that we have the right to. Assuming that it's our right is one of those rules that you can't just make up.



Then who decides if you can kill the fire ants in the driveway?  "Because we can" cannot be limited to our people / ant interaction if one carries no greater value than the other.  Consistency would demand equal treatment and application of rights.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 25, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> If there's a difference, please explain.



In laymans terms the soul is basically what makes you you, and different from everyone else.  It's how you relate to others and how you understand yourself.  In short, the soul is the essence of humanity’s being; it is who we are.  Without a body you would still be able to recognize someone by the characteristics of their soul. 

The spirit is the aspect of humanity that connects with God. It gives us the ability to have an intimate relationship with God. Believers are spiritually alive whereas unbelievers are not.  It is exactly what is referred to by the  term "born again".  Jesus explained in John 3:3 the exact meaning "“3 Jesus replied, “I assure you: Unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 “But how can anyone be born when he is old? ” Nicodemus asked Him. “Can he enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born? ”
5 Jesus answered, “I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 Whatever is born of the flesh is flesh, and whatever is born of the Spirit is spirit.”


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Then who decides if you can kill the fire ants in the driveway?  "Because we can" cannot be limited to our people / ant interaction if one carries no greater value than the other.  Consistency would demand equal treatment and application of rights.



Who decides that the black panther in the north GA mountains has the right to kill the deer? Who decides if the beaver has the right to chew down the tree. Who decides if the cotton tail has the right to eat the clover. Who decides if bear has the right to urinate on the clover which would in turn kill it when the bear could possibly choose to urinate on just dirt and not kill any kind of "life." But then who gives the bear the right to urinate on the rock? That's disrespectful to urinate on it.

Just because I would do it, doesn't mean that anyone one or anything has bestowed upon me any right to.  I think this is going to get us back to an ultimate morale provider......


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> In laymans terms the soul is basically what makes you you, and different from everyone else.  It's how you relate to others and how you understand yourself.  In short, the soul is the essence of humanity’s being; it is who we are.  Without a body you would still be able to recognize someone by the characteristics of their soul.
> 
> The spirit is the aspect of humanity that connects with God. It gives us the ability to have an intimate relationship with God. Believers are spiritually alive whereas unbelievers are not.  It is exactly what is referred to by the  term "born again".  Jesus explained in John 3:3 the exact meaning "“3 Jesus replied, “I assure you: Unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
> 4 “But how can anyone be born when he is old? ” Nicodemus asked Him. “Can he enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born? ”
> 5 Jesus answered, “I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 Whatever is born of the flesh is flesh, and whatever is born of the Spirit is spirit.”



While I'm not a big fan of anyone quoting scripture in the first place, that scripture doesn't show any difference between the spirit and the soul.

Where are you getting that information that you are basing the difference from?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Who decides that the black panther in the north GA mountains has the right to kill the deer? Who decides if the beaver has the right to chew down the tree. Who decides if the cotton tail has the right to eat the clover. Who decides if bear has the right to urinate on the clover which would in turn kill it when the bear could possibly choose to urinate on just dirt and not kill any kind of "life." But then who gives the bear the right to urinate on the rock? That's disrespectful to urinate on it.



Nobody.  There is no basis.....which leaves the question, why is it, according to you (or anybody with similar beliefs), ok to stomp an ant, but not kill the annoying unemployed drum player next door?



TripleXBullies said:


> Just because I would do it, doesn't mean that anyone one or anything has bestowed upon me any right to.  I think this is going to get us back to an ultimate morale provider......



Maybe.  I think it basically is proving that we all believe humans are inherently different, with certain rights not extended to other critters.  This is either based on perspective with zero basis, or the fact that we all believe in a soul to a certain extent.

You have a conscience which limits your willingness to treat humans in a similar manner as you would ants.  Alligators eat each other all the time.  Bears will kill cubs to get to their mother. That thing which tells you that, even though he is incredibly annoying, it is probably not ok to kill the unemployed drum player next door is your soul.  You would feel that way whether laws existed to the contrary or not.

I would argue that laws to the contrary are also evidence of the soul.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> There must be a basis for the difference if one's rights trump the other's.



Might makes right.

Walk into a pride of lions and tell them that you are human, you have a soul and there is something about you that sets you off from them and all the other animals. Let us know how impressed they are.
Do the same thing in downtown Compton, middle of the jungle to a cannibalistic pygmy tribe or RD3 Tehran and see if they are any more or less impressed than the pride of lions before they kill you too.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So a roach crawling across the floor has the exact same rights as I do?



In the Roach's world it has a purpose and a pecking order. He holds you to no higher authority or respect in his world than you to him in yours.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

First, glad to see you back around! 


bullethead said:


> Might makes right.
> 
> Walk into a pride of lions and tell them that you are human, you have a soul and there is something about you that sets you off from them and all the other animals. Let us know how impressed they are.
> Do the same thing in downtown Compton, middle of the jungle to a cannibalistic pygmy tribe or RD3 Tehran and see if they are any more or less impressed than the pride of lions before they kill you too.



Second, what's your point? The lions are going to eat you and the compton folks are going to murder you.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Might makes right.



Ok, then it is also fine if I walk into a room with an annoying unemployed drum player and kill him because I am "mightier?"



bullethead said:


> Do the same thing in downtown Compton, middle of the jungle to a cannibalistic pygmy tribe or RD3 Tehran and see if they are any more or less impressed than the pride of lions before they kill you too.



Why did we develop laws protecting rights, and why do those rights exist if we have no value greater than the ant?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> In the Roach's world it has a purpose and a pecking order. He holds you to no higher authority or respect in his world than you to him in yours.



That doesn't answer the question. Do we have the same rights in this universe? Or, do I, as a human, have authority over him?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> In the Roach's world it has a purpose and a pecking order. He holds you to no higher authority or respect in his world than you to him in yours.



He runs when I turn on the light.  As do most other critters.  They are aware of something.

Think about this.....a deer could whoop most of us if it set it's mind to it.  Somehow, though, it has evolved to run away?  I know a racoon could whoop us....same thing, though.

don't think your "might" example holds much water.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Nobody.  There is no basis.....which leaves the question, why is it, according to you (or anybody with similar beliefs), ok to stomp an ant, but not kill the annoying unemployed drum player next door?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



At what point in the existence of humans did it become not OK to kill that drum player?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> He runs when I turn on the light.  As do most other critters.  They are aware of something.
> 
> Think about this.....a deer could whoop most of us if it set it's mind to it.  Somehow, though, it has evolved to run away?  I know a racoon could whoop us....same thing, though.
> 
> don't think your "might" example holds much water.



Again, tell that to a pride of lions and see how impressed they are.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> At what point in the existence of humans did it become not OK to kill that drum player?



When our soul felt sad about it.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Again, tell that to a pride of lions and see how impressed they are.



I find the idea of hunting lions to be a bit distasteful, particularly in the event that the lion is not eaten, but killed as a trophy.  Same with bears.

That being said, I have seen many hunting shows where folks were killing both, and each time the mighty lion, and mighty bear was terrified of humans, even though the prey was clearly physically superior.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Nobody.  There is no basis.....which leaves the question, why is it, according to you (or anybody with similar beliefs), ok to stomp an ant, but not kill the annoying unemployed drum player next door?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again... It's about morals when it comes to killing other humans. I do believe in the human's right to life, but I don't think that right is given to us by anything more than ourselves. There are still native type tribes that don't believe in that right today. As BH said there are extremist groups who don't believe in that right. 

We are different than other critters... and I said so, no one has to grant the right for the panther to kill the deer or anything like that not... No one has to grant the right for the pride of lions to eat me. Just like no one or thing has to grant me the right to spray the bugs with insecticide.


----------



## Mars (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So your conclusion is self recognition and emotion are traits exclusive to humans and animals therefore those are the traits that make us human?
> 
> 
> BTW, your sig line is awesome!



Those are the traits that make a person. Being homo sapiens makes us human.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> We are different than other critters... and I said so, no one has to grant the right for the panther to kill the deer or anything like that not... No one has to grant the right for the pride of lions to eat me. Just like no one or thing has to grant me the right to spray the bugs with insecticide.





Then I really don't understand your position....if one is not different than the other, than why does one have gerater value?  Why does your moral compass, which is set by you, based on your opinion that we are all star dust miraculously pulled together much like the rock, tell you that the unemployed drum player should not be pepper sprayed until he shuts up?


----------



## Mars (Jun 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Those which are inalienable.  Or, why do I have a right to take the life of a chicken when an alternate course exists which leaves the chicken alive?
> 
> I got here the same way the chicken did........why do I get to make a life or death decision for the chicken?
> 
> ...



If in bear infested woods, is it not a bear's decision to kill and eat you?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Again... It's about morals when it comes to killing other humans.


Is it about morals when the panther kills the deer?



> I do believe in the human's right to life, but I don't think that right is given to us by anything more than ourselves.


Then it's not really a right, is it? It's just a thought we had one time.



> We are different than other critters.


What's the difference?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That doesn't answer the question. Do we have the same rights in this universe? Or, do I, as a human, have authority over him?



You and any animal/creature has the authority over any other animal out of necessity and force. You squash an ant on the counter top because if benefits you to have it dead instead of in your cereal box. Now take a vacation to Costa Rica and try a 10 day stay in the jungle and see how impressed those ants are that you are a human. They will eat your rear-end alive. In your element yeah, "we" are real bad-a's. But go to Alaska like that hippy bear lover Treadwell, and you instantly become a snack. Big Brown Bears like the soul cut just as much as the rest of the meat on our bones.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

Mars said:


> If in bear infested woods, is it not a bear's decision to kill and eat you?



If in bear infested woods, is it ok for you to kill the bear?  If in people infested cities, is it ok to kill the people?

The bear eats me only in the event he outsmarts me, or I am too stupid to recognize my predicament.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> When our soul felt sad about it.



Highly doubtful. It happened as we evolved into a society. If we are from some being that gave us a soul, that would have been instilled in us from day one. Not hundreds of thousands of years later.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

Mars said:


> If in bear infested woods, is it not a bear's decision to kill and eat you?



Yes, but a bear is acting on instinct, while a human would be acting on morals(when it comes to killing other humans), two different things.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> But go to Alaska like that hippy bear lover Treadwell, and you instantly become a snack.



That dude was an idiot.  I watched the documentary about him.....just, dumb.

Somehow, through chance, we were able to "bear proof" our lives.  Yet, the rest of the bear's prey hasn't been able to overcome this obstacle.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Highly doubtful. It happened as we evolved into a society.



Why is that?




bullethead said:


> If we are from some being that gave us a soul, that would have been instilled in us from day one. Not hundreds of thousands of years later.



Speculation.


----------



## Mars (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, but a bear is acting on instinct, while a human would be acting on morals(when it comes to killing other humans), two different things.



You are assuming a difference between instinct and morals. Is self preservation not an instinct shared by all in the animal kingdom?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Highly doubtful. It happened as we evolved into a society. If we are from some being that gave us a soul, that would have been instilled in us from day one. Not hundreds of thousands of years later.



Who said anything about hundreds of thousands of years later? Cain knew it was wrong to kill Abel.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I find the idea of hunting lions to be a bit distasteful, particularly in the event that the lion is not eaten, but killed as a trophy.  Same with bears.
> 
> That being said, I have seen many hunting shows where folks were killing both, and each time the mighty lion, and mighty bear was terrified of humans, even though the prey was clearly physically superior.



I bet you never watched one hunting show where those lions and bears were terrified of an unarmed hunter.
I personally love to hunt and shoot. But I am not stupid enough to walk into a pride of lions, unarmed, and announce that " I am human, God made me different, fear me and obey me because I am better than you". It is a great way to get eaten.

We can shoot them now because we were able to adapt to our weakness and make a weapon that even out the playing field. Animals use tools. We are just better at it.....right now.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> If in bear infested woods, is it ok for you to kill the bear?  If in people infested cities, is it ok to kill the people?
> 
> The bear eats me only in the event he outsmarts me, or I am too stupid to recognize my predicament.



We( as a human race) kill things to benefit us. Whether it is for food, sport, or to take their habitat, we have been doing it to every creature on the planet INCLUDING other humans since we started to walk upright.
We will kill the bear for no other reason than to instill our might over the bear. Take away our weapons and suddenly we are more open to share the woods and live and let live.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

Mars said:


> You are assuming a difference between instinct and morals. Is self preservation not an instinct shared by all in the animal kingdom?



Yes. Where does that come into play when I kill a deer with my bow?  I don't see the deer as made in the same way as other humans, because I see humans as having a soul and being made in the image of God, where as a deer is just an animal in which humans have dominion over.

From the atheistic/agnostice worldview, the hunter and the deer are on the exact playing field, because they are both simply a sack of genes that evolved through the millenia. I would agrue that the hunter being able to recognize that he is a human doesn't mean anything other than, from the A/A worldview, that he evolved differently than the deer, big deal.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Is it about morals when the panther kills the deer?
> 
> 
> Then it's not really a right, is it? It's just a thought we had one time.
> ...



I've answered those several times. Rights are assigned from thoughts, correct. Because there are no moral absolutes. We think them all up and have a general consensus. We've all been over that before.

There are TONS of differences, you don't need to be point them out again, but not difference that gives us any inherent right. We just assume them.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I bet you never watched one hunting show where those lions and bears were terrified of an unarmed hunter.



I have no experience with lions.  As a general rule, my understanding is that bears try and avoid human contact.  The folks I know who hunt them tell me that scent is pretty important, if they smell you, they don't come in.



bullethead said:


> I personally love to hunt and shoot. But I am not stupid enough to walk into a pride of lions, unarmed, and announce that " I am human, God made me different, fear me and obey me because I am better than you". It is a great way to eaten.



Sure.

But, why would it be ok to walk into the pride of lions with a gun and kill them, but not into a hippy village and open fire?  



bullethead said:


> We can shoot them now because we were able to adapt to our weakness and make a weapon that even out the playing field. Animals use tools. We are just better at it.....right now.



Different argument, involves evolution, why's, all that mess.  

But, while were there..........if we are no different than animals, why did we seek a polite society which gives shelter and comfort to the weak?  What makes us have compassion for those who would be discarded in nature?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That doesn't answer the question. Do we have the same rights in this universe? Or, do I, as a human, have authority over him?





stringmusic said:


> First, glad to see you back around!
> 
> 
> Second, what's your point? The lions are going to eat you and the compton folks are going to murder you.





stringmusic said:


> Who said anything about hundreds of thousands of years later? Cain knew it was wrong to kill Abel.


Bullet, did I make your ignore list or something??


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, but a bear is acting on instinct, while a human would be acting on morals(when it comes to killing other humans), two different things.



Is it not our instinct??

That same bear will find a female with cubs and kill the cubs so he can mate with the female so HIS bloodline continues. Not too different than many human conquests throughout history.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> We will kill the bear for no other reason than to instill our might over the bear. Take away our weapons and suddenly we are more open to share the woods and live and let live.



Nah.....we would develop more weapons.....because we are different.  Take away the bears teeth and claws, and he will die.  Take away a humans legs, and other humans will come along and help.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Who said anything about hundreds of thousands of years later? Cain knew it was wrong to kill Abel.



You are stuck in the Bible man and you can't see past the folklore.....sorry to tell you but that IF those two clowns ever lived at all, they came hundreds of thousands of years after the first humans.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Then I really don't understand your position....if one is not different than the other, than why does one have gerater value?  Why does your moral compass, which is set by you, based on your opinion that we are all star dust miraculously pulled together much like the rock, tell you that the unemployed drum player should not be pepper sprayed until he shuts up?



Morals. It was once, in the not so distant past, not morally wrong for men to have intimate relationships with boys. The general consensus on that has changed. My morals are based on that. 

It is not morally wrong for some extremist groups to kill you because you don't believe in the same god as them. They may think they have the right to kill you for that. They are assuming the right... which is what happens with all rights.. the ones you agree with and the ones you don't.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Morals. It was once, in the not so distant past, not morally wrong for men to have intimate relationships with boys. The general consensus on that has changed. My morals are based on that.
> 
> It is not morally wrong for some extremist groups to kill you because you don't believe in the same god as them. They may think they have the right to kill you for that. They are assuming the right... which is what happens with all rights.. the ones you agree with and the ones you don't.



Why did opinions evolve?

Why do we have compassion on the weak and sick when the rest of the natural world discards them?


----------



## Mars (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes. Where does that come into play when I kill a deer with my bow?  I don't see the deer as made in the same way as other humans, because I see humans as having a soul and being made in the image of God, where as a deer is just an animal in which humans have dominion over.
> 
> From the atheistic/agnostice worldview, the hunter and the deer are on the exact playing field, because they are both simply a sack of genes that evolved through the millenia. I would agrue that the hunter being able to recognize that he is a human doesn't mean anything other than, from the A/A worldview, that he evolved differently than the deer, big deal.



As the old say goes "With God anything is possible." We do not have the same cognitive abilities of God and it is impossible to use our reason and logic to explain God and the nature of creatures. I am just arguing on my own reason and a life of thought and observation. It can not be said for certain either way. 

BTW, I too share your Christian views and understand your opinions. As far as God given human superiority over animals, one of my favorite verses, Genesis 27:3, is my confirmation.

Now therefore, please take your weapons, your quiver and your bow, and go out to the field and hunt game for me.

 I am just arguing this point for the sake of philosophical conversation.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, but a bear is acting on instinct, while a human would be acting on morals(when it comes to killing other humans), two different things.



Are they that different? If there is anything that could be construed as absolute morals, then I would argue that they aren't that different.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Highly doubtful. It happened as we evolved into a society. If we are from some being that gave us a soul, that would have been instilled in us from day one. Not hundreds of thousands of years later.





bullethead said:


> You are stuck in the Bible man and you can't see past the folklore.....sorry to tell you but that IF those two clowns ever lived at all, they came hundreds of thousands of years after the first humans.



This happens all the time in here. People ask questions that assume God(see highlighted red), and then when the question is answer with that same assumption, the comeback is, "God's not real you know"


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> That dude was an idiot.  I watched the documentary about him.....just, dumb.
> 
> Somehow, through chance, we were able to "bear proof" our lives.  Yet, the rest of the bear's prey hasn't been able to overcome this obstacle.



Not bear PROOF.... But for the sake of the argument, fine.. They's say we are bear proof... We are far from virus proof. Maybe those viruses are the REAL difference. Illness and disease can decimate humans. Are they really at the top? We can fight them for a time, get rid of some of them, but they change to resist our efforts as well. What gives them the right to squash us?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I have no experience with lions.  As a general rule, my understanding is that bears try and avoid human contact.  The folks I know who hunt them tell me that scent is pretty important, if they smell you, they don't come in.


Those are bears that have adapted to having humans around.
I have hunted bears black bear in Maine and those bears knew I was there, smelled, saw me, and could give 2 darns and a dang that I was there.
Grizzly/Brown and Polar Bears would have done the same thing, but laid a whoopin on me to boot.





JB0704 said:


> Sure.
> 
> But, why would it be ok to walk into the pride of lions with a gun and kill them, but not into a hippy village and open fire?


We do it because we can. For every person that thinks it's fine to do that there is someone clutching a lap dog dressed in baby clothes that says shooting those lions is a no-no. And when that bunny hugger dies they are gonna leave their inheritance to a pet.
I'm not so sure you guys think this stuff all the way through. SOME people think there is no difference between humans and animals. SOME people think we are the ultimate rulers in the animal world as long as we can arm ourselves accordingly and SOME people think that in favorable conditions we rule and are smart enough to not brag about it when conditions do not favor us.





JB0704 said:


> Different argument, involves evolution, why's, all that mess.
> 
> But, while were there..........if we are no different than animals, why did we seek a polite society which gives shelter and comfort to the weak?  What makes us have compassion for those who would be discarded in nature?



Short quick answer: Fire


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

Mars said:


> As the old say goes "With God anything is possible." We do not have the same cognitive abilities of God and it is impossible to use our reason and logic to explain God and the nature of creatures. I am just arguing on my own reason and a life of thought and observation. It can not be said for certain either way.
> 
> BTW, I too share your Christian views and understand your opinions. As far as God given human superiority over animals, one of my favorite verses, Genesis 27:3, is my confirmation.
> 
> ...



Well, I appreciate you doing so!


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

There's like 9 different topics going on in this thread right now.....


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes. Where does that come into play when I kill a deer with my bow?  I don't see the deer as made in the same way as other humans, because I see humans as having a soul and being made in the image of God, where as a deer is just an animal in which humans have dominion over.
> 
> From the atheistic/agnostice worldview, the hunter and the deer are on the exact playing field, because they are both simply a sack of genes that evolved through the millenia. I would agrue that the hunter being able to recognize that he is a human doesn't mean anything other than, from the A/A worldview, that he evolved differently than the deer, big deal.



Something like that.... I got lucky. Similarly to my particular genes being smarter than yours    YAY


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> That dude was an idiot.  I watched the documentary about him.....just, dumb.
> 
> Somehow, through chance, we were able to "bear proof" our lives.  Yet, the rest of the bear's prey hasn't been able to overcome this obstacle.



Agreed on idiot comment.

No one is bear proof. We adapted to deal with them in our own way, yet people still get attacked and/or eaten every year. Other animals have adapted with increased speed/stamina, sense of sight and smell to increase their odds of not being bear food....yet, the odds are some will get attacked and eaten.

Simple fact is if that there were roaming herds of humans on the tundra, most of the very young/sick/weak/elderly/and crippled will get gobbled up before the strong do. In fact, THAT is exactly how it was until we started to sleep in trees to avoid most predators. Then we were able to make tools/weapons to defend ourselves and then we made homes out of caves to protect and defend.
We adapted and most of all the prey that the bear dines on has adapted too, it is just that the Bear have found that humans are usually not as easy to catch as some other piece of protein so we are (for the most part) not on their menu.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Why did opinions evolve?
> 
> Why do we have compassion on the weak and sick when the rest of the natural world discards them?



I recall a chimp that seemed to care for a child that fell in to the enclosure at a zoo. It didn't happen on a social scale in that situation, but it happened. Just like dogs and horses might show emotion. It's all about perspective. If I was a bird and I could fly 90mph... and NOTHING ELSE could fly 90mph, would I think I was special and anointed by the bird god to have dominion over the skies? I might see it from that perspective.... but then there are cheetahs who can run 40mph and unfortunately, I can only hop around on the ground...


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Bullet, did I make your ignore list or something??



If you did make the list....would I be able to answer you??

One at a time brother........I have a reply or two posted already.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> This happens all the time in here. People ask questions that assume God(see highlighted red), and then when the question is answer with that same assumption, the comeback is, "God's not real you know"



Answers like that are given because someone in an earlier post assumes a God's involvement. I remember someone telling us all:


stringmusic said:


> A soul is the spiritual that inhabits the physical, it's what makes you a human and sets you apart from everything else in the world. They are created by God and I don't know where is resides in the body.
> 
> God came up with the idea that people have a soul and He made that determination because He is the One who puts the soul there.



So I included that in my reply to show how nonsensical it really is.
People were on this planet much longer than two named Adam and Eve. If a soul came from God then it should have been ready to do the things a soul is needed to do starting with the first human, not wait till it evolved a couple hundred thousand years later.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> There's like 9 different topics going on in this thread right now.....



The things you bring up are not so clear cut that there is one Do-all, End -all answer. MANY things must be established that in time might lead to a real answer. 9 different topics that all are intertwined with the one insane final end result that you initially started with. We now have to go back a few hundred thousand years and pick apart and piece together a couple million things to get to your end result.
Your "God did it" is much easier, I will admit.....but this Homey don't play dat.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I recall a chimp that seemed to care for a child that fell in to the enclosure at a zoo. It didn't happen on a social scale in that situation, but it happened. Just like dogs and horses might show emotion. It's all about perspective. If I was a bird and I could fly 90mph... and NOTHING ELSE could fly 90mph, would I think I was special and anointed by the bird god to have dominion over the skies? I might see it from that perspective.... but then there are cheetahs who can run 40mph and unfortunately, I can only hop around on the ground...



Right now on Yahoo's home page is a video of a dog burying another puppy and if it does not look/seem like that dog is mourning the loss of the other dog then I don't know what to say.



Spot on on your above post.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Something like that.... I got lucky. Similarly to my particular genes being smarter than yours    YAY


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


>



Thanks for understanding the joke!


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

Lots of replies to reply too, and I'll get to 'em all.  But, I gotta sign off for now and take my young'un to his football practice.....'cause my soul tells me it's the right thing to do 

Oh, and there is zero chance I will be eaten by a bear on the way home.  Yes, sir.  I'm bear proof.  I might get killed by other means, but I seriously doubt a bear is gonna do it.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Bullet, did I make your ignore list or something??


No you did not make my ignore list.
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!! lololol




stringmusic said:


> That doesn't answer the question. Do we have the same rights in this universe? Or, do I, as a human, have authority over him?


We, through adapting to do what we need to do in order to survive, gave ourselves the best possible chance to rule the roost.....for the time being.



stringmusic said:


> First, glad to see you back around!


Appreciated and glad to be back. I was on vacation and as much a I luv all you guys(DNQ..dearly not q-ueerly) for a week I was much happier checking out the sights on the beach. 




stringmusic said:


> Second, what's your point? The lions are going to eat you and the compton folks are going to murder you.


Which ones have the soul again???




stringmusic said:


> Who said anything about hundreds of thousands of years later? Cain knew it was wrong to kill Abel.


I said about hundreds of thousands of years later because we have to have a place to start from in order to get to the finish.




[/QUOTE]


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 25, 2013)

Do the atheists/agnostics in here agree with this definition?




> Existentialism, a philosophical trend which took prominence in the mid 20th century, provides a definition of man which is vastly different than others. Jean-Paul Sartre, perhaps the most well-known existentialist philosopher, is famous for the dictum "existence proceeds essence," which, when applied for man, means that he has no pre-determined defining nature but rather is responsible for making his own nature by choosing from all his possible selves. In other words, man is his own essential "nothingness" and must create his own particular "being" by taking on the responsibility of providing his own definition. Man is his own radical freedom, in that nothing constrains him save himself, and to be human means simply to be this self-defining creature, to be whatever one decides one wants to become.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Do the atheists/agnostics in here agree with this definition?



It sounds pretty good.


Does anyone wonder, especially the theists, how the planet and it's creatures went on about their existence for hundreds of millions of years before the first humans came to be?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Do the atheists/agnostics in here agree with this definition?



My brain just went to the blue screen... Too late in the day...


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 25, 2013)

bullethead said:
			
		

> Does anyone wonder, especially the theists, how the planet and it's creatures went on about their existence for hundreds of millions of years before the first humans came to be?



I made it home....no bears.  Bh, I took a break from the forum while on vacation myself.  However, my wife enjoyed the beach while I fished.  Amazing how many fish can be caught in the surf.

I figure everything got by much as it does today, survival of the fittest modifying life along the way.  However, nothing has ever been much like us, my guess is that the soul was introduced with us.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I made it home....no bears.  Bh, I took a break from the forum while on vacation myself.  However, my wife enjoyed the beach while I fished.  Amazing how many fish can be caught in the surf.
> 
> I figure everything got by much as it does today, survival of the fittest modifying life along the way.  However, nothing has ever been much like us, my guess is that the soul was introduced with us.



I think(therefore I am...lolol just kidding) that the soul, along with a few other things, were invented by "us" as our brains/thoughts evolved. We know what we are thinking but how do we really know what some of the other mammals think? They show social skills. The lions for example will all starve as a group instead of eating one of "their own". They will kill other lions from another pride but not for food. They socialize. As do Apes, Monkeys, Dolphins, Whales and many..many others. There is a pecking order, hierarchy,  individuals "place", jobs, and for the lack of a better term, Laws or Rules within the various groups. There are penalties for not obeying those laws like getting a good thumping, getting run off or getting killed for not sticking to the family or groups plan. It is too much to explain in depth here but there are many examples of it throughout the various species. They adapt to what is needed/best for the survival of the group. We are no different, just more advanced....


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 25, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> While I'm not a big fan of anyone quoting scripture in the first place, that scripture doesn't show any difference between the spirit and the soul.
> 
> Where are you getting that information that you are basing the difference from?



The Bible clearly teaches man is composed of a body, soul and spirit.  It would take a book to examine the depth, breadth, and the significance of each.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I think(therefore I am...lolol just kidding) that the soul, along with a few other things, were invented by "us" as our brains/thoughts evolved. We know what we are thinking but how do we really know what some of the other mammals think? They show social skills. The lions for example will all starve as a group instead of eating one of "their own". They will kill other lions from another pride but not for food. They socialize. As do Apes, Monkeys, Dolphins, Whales and many..many others. There is a pecking order, hierarchy,  individuals "place", jobs, and for the lack of a better term, Laws or Rules within the various groups. There are penalties for not obeying those laws like getting a good thumping, getting run off or getting killed for not sticking to the family or groups plan. It is too much to explain in depth here but there are many examples of it throughout the various species. They adapt to what is needed/best for the survival of the group. We are no different, just more advanced....



Really?  Could you please explain the evolutionary necessity of love, devotion, forgiveness of ones enemies, beauty, art, music, or grief at the passing of a loved one, just to name a few.


----------



## bigreddwon (Jun 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Right now on Yahoo's home page is a video of a dog burying another puppy and if it does not look/seem like that dog is mourning the loss of the other dog then I don't know what to say.
> 
> 
> 
> Spot on on your above post.



If it's like my dog it will dig it up in a week eat some of then roll in..


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 25, 2013)

Here is an excellent article on the Christian stance regarding the question "Do animals have souls?"

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=582


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Really?  Could you please explain the evolutionary necessity of love, devotion, forgiveness of ones enemies, beauty, art, music, or grief at the passing of a loved one, just to name a few.



You have Google, you don't need me to explain all that to you. You don't take what I say seriously anyway. You only hear what you want/need to hear. This is the wrong place for that.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Here is an excellent article on the Christian stance regarding the question "Do animals have souls?"
> 
> https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=582



Honestly, did you expect it to say anything else?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2013)

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...olution-of-the-human-species-new-book-argues/

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

http://www.npr.org/2010/08/02/128849908/food-for-thought-meat-based-diet-made-us-smarter

http://www.livescience.com/24875-meat-human-brain.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/cooked-food-diet-primates-brains_n_2033975.html


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 26, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Not bear PROOF.... But for the sake of the argument, fine.. They's say we are bear proof... We are far from virus proof. Maybe those viruses are the REAL difference. Illness and disease can decimate humans. Are they really at the top? We can fight them for a time, get rid of some of them, but they change to resist our efforts as well. What gives them the right to squash us?



Yes?????


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 26, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Those are bears that have adapted to having humans around.
> I have hunted bears black bear in Maine and those bears knew I was there, smelled, saw me, and could give 2 darns and a dang that I was there.
> Grizzly/Brown and Polar Bears would have done the same thing, but laid a whoopin on me to boot.



Only in the event you allowed them to through lack of preparation / awareness.




bullethead said:


> We do it because we can. For every person that thinks it's fine to do that there is someone clutching a lap dog dressed in baby clothes that says shooting those lions is a no-no. And when that bunny hugger dies they are gonna leave their inheritance to a pet.



Yes.  They are more in line with your position.  An animal is a person is a tree is a rock.



bullethead said:


> I'm not so sure you guys think this stuff all the way through. SOME people think there is no difference between humans and animals. SOME people think we are the ultimate rulers in the animal world as long as we can arm ourselves accordingly and SOME people think that in favorable conditions we rule and are smart enough to not brag about it when conditions do not favor us.



Bullet.  Any reasonable assessment of nature would conclude that we dominate the landscape where we want.  The lions cannot determine to take over Africa, then colonize Europe......we wouldn't let them.

Let's make this simple......why is it ok to chop down a tree but not kill a human?  Each are living organisms with great value in the ecosystem.  If there is nothing to make us "special" than why the greater value of one over the other?  Why are rights only applied to one?




bullethead said:


> Short quick answer: Fire



I have heard this theory before. Wonder why the bears ahven't figured that one out yet?  Can you imagine a world where Dinosaurs had started cooking food with fire  

That would be seriously messed up.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 26, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I recall a chimp that seemed to care for a child that fell in to the enclosure at a zoo. It didn't happen on a social scale in that situation, but it happened. Just like dogs and horses might show emotion. It's all about perspective. If I was a bird and I could fly 90mph... and NOTHING ELSE could fly 90mph, would I think I was special and anointed by the bird god to have dominion over the skies? I might see it from that perspective.... but then there are cheetahs who can run 40mph and unfortunately, I can only hop around on the ground...



You wuld think you ahd dominion over the skies, but it would only be that way until some kid with a BB gun shot you.  Same with the Cheetah.

There are videos of elephants painting.  That doesn't mean elephants will evolve to appreciate art.  There is a difference, you know it,  know it......and the Lord knows it (old Beavis and Bu++head reference).


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 26, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You have Google, you don't need me to explain all that to you. You don't take what I say seriously anyway. You only hear what you want/need to hear. This is the wrong place for that.



Huh?  The question is do you take what you say seriously and if so can you defend your position.  Personally I cannot account for those characteristics through evolution so I was asking if you could.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 26, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Honestly, did you expect it to say anything else?



No, it's quite reasonable.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Let's make this simple......why is it ok to chop down a tree but not kill a human?  Each are living organisms with great value in the ecosystem.  If there is nothing to make us "special" than why the greater value of one over the other?  Why are rights only applied to one?



I don't remember an answer to this question from anybody in this thread, and it's been asked a few times already.

Anybody have a coherent answer?


----------



## Mars (Jun 26, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't remember an answer to this question from anybody in this thread, and it's been asked a few times already.
> 
> Anybody have a coherent answer?



I don't think anyone here would say that a tree has qualities of a human or person other than "its a living organism."Since the OP is referring to humans and personhood, I don't see how a tree is relevant to the topic at hand. But since the question was asked, a tree is not a self aware cognitive creature such as humans or other animals. For the purposes of this argument, trees are inanimate objects that can not be compared to an animal. Killing a tree is totally different from killing an animal.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 26, 2013)

Mars said:


> Since the OP is referring to humans and personhood, I don't see how a tree is relevant to the topic at hand.



It is relevant in that it demonstrates that humans are given greater value than the tree.....even if we both "got here the same way."  The point is to demonstrate that there is no basis for value outside personal morality if one does not recognize that humans are "special."  I believe so because we ahve a soul, and the tree does not.



Mars said:


> Killing a tree is totally different from killing an animal.



If we are all chance circumstances, than the tree is a product of evolution.  It lives and breathes (albeit quite differently).  If we are just a product of evolution, than our value is no greater than the tree.  We each only have one life to lose.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Only in the event you allowed them to through lack of preparation / awareness.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have heard the theory but have not researched it further to find out EXACTLY why it worked for humans and not other species. The information is out there and posted in some of the links I provided. Evolutionary paths JB. Evolutionary paths.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 26, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't remember an answer to this question from anybody in this thread, and it's been asked a few times already.
> 
> Anybody have a coherent answer?



I'll ask it again also. Who says we have any RIGHTS to cut down trees? Just because we do it doesn't mean we were bestowed with the right to. I'm not a tree hugger. Just saying.

We use all resources because we need to or want to. Just as any other living organism does. We all do it for the same reasons and upon the same authority.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Huh?  The question is do you take what you say seriously and if so can you defend your position.  Personally I cannot account for those characteristics through evolution so I was asking if you could.



You have no idea of what any other animal or species can appreciate or thinks of as art. You are trying to use human terms for all species. If a monkey finds a rare gem, dazzling rock or discarded soda bottle it may appreciate it in a way (similar in feeling)that humans find art beautiful. But obviously not exactly as humans would then take it and hang it on a wall. But an animal could take it and hide it so it can go get it and admire it later. They may carry it with them wherever they go. Some other animal might see them with it and want to take it for them-self. KoKo the gorilla likes puppies and kittens. You have to actually search for examples before you dismiss them. They are not going to be like having a Cheeta dressed in an Armani suit at the Gugenheim checking out paintings but animals on very basic levels do seem to show appreciation for certain things.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 26, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You have heard the theory but have not researched it further to find out EXACTLY why it worked for humans and not other species. The information is out there and posted in some of the links I provided. Evolutionary paths JB. Evolutionary paths.



I read a little bit about it in college, as supplementary reading to my origins and biology courses (Christian university.....I wanted a little more well rounded studies).  Pretty sure we also covered it in class for a time.  It's a decent theory.  And, an open mind can usually grasp the reasoning behind most theories and explanations.

Here's where it bugs me........though human history may have changed through use of fire in food, it does not explain why we ever decided to use fire for food.  All other creatures have evolved to their environment with fur which thickens and sheds with the temperature.  Or, as with reptiles, their blood heats and cools.  We, however, being "animals," supposedly one day took our furry selves down to a forest fire and decided it felt good, and we should replicate it (nevermind for a moment that we were somehow the only ones with the ability to replicate it).  Then, as we munched down on raw rabbit, we thought "hey, I wonder what this would taste like if I threw it in that fire."

Why didn't the dinos, or chimps, or alligators think of that?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 26, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> We use all resources because we need to or want to. Just as any other living organism does. We all do it for the same reasons and upon the same authority.



Then, if the unemployed drummer next door has some fried chicken I want, is it equally ok for me to cut him down?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't remember an answer to this question from anybody in this thread, and it's been asked a few times already.
> 
> Anybody have a coherent answer?



been answered a few times, but here it goes again....
We(humans) make the rules because we are the top dogs for now.

Who decided this before humans came into existence?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 26, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Who decided this before humans came into existence?



Did T-rex have a personal morality which said it was ok to kill one evolutionary wonder, but not the other?

How 'bout humans taking issue with killing animals for fun?  Is that unique, or a shared characteristic amongst all top-dogs?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 26, 2013)

Full disclosure: I don't have an unemployed drummer next living next door.  I just thought of an example of the most annoying person imaginable.....a loud musician with nothing else to do.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I read a little bit about it in college, as supplementary reading to my origins and biology courses (Christian university.....I wanted a little more well rounded studies).  Pretty sure we also covered it in class for a time.  It's a decent theory.  And, an open mind can usually grasp the reasoning behind most theories and explanations.
> 
> Here's where it bugs me........though human history may have changed through use of fire in food, it does not explain why we ever decided to use fire for food.  All other creatures have evolved to their environment with fur which thickens and sheds with the temperature.  Or, as with reptiles, their blood heats and cools.  We, however, being "animals," supposedly one day took our furry selves down to a forest fire and decided it felt good, and we should replicate it (nevermind for a moment that we were somehow the only ones with the ability to replicate it).  Then, as we munched down on raw rabbit, we thought "hey, I wonder what this would taste like if I threw it in that fire."
> 
> Why didn't the dinos, or chimps, or alligators think of that?



They did not NEED to. 
We are here because for whatever reason it worked for an individual or group and those that followed that example survived the others did not. It did not happen on a camping weekend, it took thousands upon thousands of years of passing it on to offspring so their systems developed to handle it.
So, by your line of thought, if we eat a raw oyster, WHO thought of that being something they wanted to see, catch, smash open and slurp down? Well I don't know who but somebody obviously did it....and liked it, and still to this day decides not to cook it instead so here we are.......


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Then, if the unemployed drummer next door has some fried chicken I want, is it equally ok for me to cut him down?



In the grand scheme of the universe, YES.. There are socially applied and mostly universally accepted morals and laws that prohibit it. The right to life that we have conceived on our own.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Did T-rex have a personal morality which said it was ok to kill one evolutionary wonder, but not the other?
> 
> How 'bout humans taking issue with killing animals for fun?  Is that unique, or a shared characteristic amongst all top-dogs?



There was a time we killed humans for fun too. Your overlooking our entire existence and just jumping to modern day. It has taken us millions of years...MILLIONS OF YEARS to get to where we are right now.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 26, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> In the grand scheme of the universe, YES.



Thank you.  A very straight, honest, and consistent response.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2013)

Off to work. See you Later guys.....


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 26, 2013)

bullethead said:


> They did not NEED to.
> We are here because for whatever reason it worked for an individual or group and those that followed that example survived the others did not. It did not happen on a camping weekend, it took thousands upon thousands of years of passing it on to offspring so their systems developed to handle it.
> So, by your line of thought, if we eat a raw oyster, WHO thought of that being something they wanted to see, catch, smash open and slurp down? Well I don't know who but somebody obviously did it....and liked it, and still to this day decides not to cook it instead so here we are.......



It's the same as anything we eat I think. We saw other animals eating it and decided to try it. I'm not saying it's THE answer, but we saw some scavenging bird eating a NOT ROTTEN, but burned animal carcass... and tried it. It was good.

God didn't give us a list of edible plants and animals. He didn't write it down in any book that gar eggs would kill us if we ate them. Nor did he create the frying pan.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 26, 2013)

bullethead said:


> They did not NEED to.
> We are here because for whatever reason it worked for an individual or group and those that followed that example survived the others did not. It did not happen on a camping weekend, it took thousands upon thousands of years of passing it on to offspring so their systems developed to handle it.



Yes.  It is quite a convenient development.  But, why did we "need" to?  What made us the only critter ever accidentally arranged with both the ability and need to manipulate nature in order to survive it?  Evolution / survival of the fittest would generally mandate that we would have died before we ever figured it out.



bullethead said:


> So, by your line of thought, if we eat a raw oyster, WHO thought of that being something they wanted to see, catch, smash open and slurp down? Well I don't know who but somebody obviously did it....and liked it, and still to this day decides not to cook it instead so here we are.......



They were unevolved.

Real answer: it's meat, and not near as gross as shrimp if you think about it.  I love shrimp, but ain't ever putting a raw oyster on my plate.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 26, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Off to work. See you Later guys.....


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jun 26, 2013)

Why were we the ONLY species to embrace fire?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 26, 2013)

Why can't we flap our arms and fly? I wish I could. Why don't we have 3 stomachs so that we can eat grass?  There are huge differences from us and other animals.... between all animals. I agree with that.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 26, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Why can't we flap our arms and fly?



Lot's of critters can do that.  We learned how to fly also....just not through biology.



TripleXBullies said:


> Why don't we have 3 stomachs so that we can eat grass?



Lot's of critters got that too.  



TripleXBullies said:


> There are huge differences from us and other animals.... between all animals. I agree with that.



Yes sir.  And the question remains.......



			
				ddd-shooter said:
			
		

> Why were we the ONLY species to embrace fire?



Nothing has ever been anything like us.  Everything else evolves with nature or dies.  We manipulate it to our liking.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 26, 2013)

How have we embraced it? Have we mastered it? Do we fear it still? When did we embrace it? My dog will lay close to a fire when she's cold. Is she embracing it too? Is she benefiting from it? Something a long that line... which could lead to something more similar in the DISTANT future. 

Show me that no other species has ever evolved some ability that seems exclusive or unique to them. I can do the research later and show some of those things. I can hear it on the Discovery channel or Animal Planet in my head - UNIQUE.

The ability to manipulate nature to our liking? Chimps can do that. Maybe not to the extent that we do... but I would argue that the ability to "manipulate nature" to our liking IS our evolution.... part of it at least. 

Those birds used to look down on us and say look at those beings... they can't even fly. They must be inferior creatures.. Then we evolved industrially or technologically different from other animals, but evolution none the less. 


One word: MACRO


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Lot's of critters can do that.  We learned how to fly also....just not through biology.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lots of primates are very close to us. Homo Erectus was very like us. "WE" are not here long enough to manipulate anything for any great length of time. We are coping the best we can for our needs. There will be a time that the cockroach is scurrying over our long gone and forgotten dust and make his home in one of these monitors where somebody at one time typed how great the human race is and how unique and special we are. We are what we are right now because of a couple million years of adaptation...just like every other single creature on this planet.


----------



## JFS (Jun 26, 2013)

I don't see why the use of fire should be considered evidence of supernatural forces.  No one can show any evidence of a soul.  It's an idea taken from Egyptian and Babylonian mythology.  Why would we base our current world view on the superstitious musings of civilizations that clearly had no idea what they were talking about?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2013)

JFS said:


> I don't see why the use of fire should be considered evidence of supernatural forces.  No one can show any evidence of a soul.  It's an idea taken from Egyptian and Babylonian mythology.  Why would we base our current world view on the superstitious musings of civilizations that clearly had no idea what they were talking about?



Gap filler. For some it is too hard to fathom that at some point someone figured out fire and meat makes a tastier treat. It could have been known to that person/family/clan for generations and slowly passed on. It could have taken thousands of years for it to spread to other clans and hundreds and tens or hundreds of thousands of years for the benefits to take effect on future offspring.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 26, 2013)

First, when the dog proactively builds the fire, then there's a point to be made.  Otherwise it's no different than a buzzard happening across an easy meal.

Second, I think you guys are going way out of your way to keep from admitting the obvious here.  People build air conditioning, and heaters.  Airplanes and cars so we can do what we want where we want.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2013)

http://news.yahoo.com/just-explain-it--animal-grief-153049696.html?vp=1


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> First, when the dog proactively builds the fire, then there's a point to be made.  Otherwise it's no different than a buzzard happening across an easy meal.
> 
> Second, I think you guys are going way out of your way to keep from admitting the obvious here.  People build air conditioning, and heaters.  Airplanes and cars so we can do what we want where we want.



People did not build air conditioners and heaters even 200 years ago let alone 200,000 years ago. It has taken us over 2 million years to get to this point and all the advances and failures along the way are overlooked in order to see that we have not been "modern" for very long at all.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2013)

If a dog NEEDS fire, it might make one happen or learn to seek out a lightning hit tree to get fire in another million years and then take another few million for it to be known to the rest of the dogs and then another few hundred thousand years for any benefits to take place physically. But they obviously have not NEEDED fire up to this point in time.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 26, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If a dog NEEDS fire, it might make one happen or learn to seek out a lightning hit tree to get fire in another million years and then take another few million for it to be known to the rest of the dogs and then another few hundred thousand years for any benefits to take place physically. But they obviously have not NEEDED fire up to this point in time.



I only read the first and last post of this thread, and I am thoroughly amused. 
Good stuff guys.....


----------



## JFS (Jun 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I think you guys are going way out of your way to keep from admitting the obvious here.  People build air conditioning, and heaters.  Airplanes and cars so we can do what we want where we want.



Totally admit that's what allows people to make the rules that allow us to kill whatever we want for our own benefit.  Still deny that means we are inhabited by unseen and immeasurable supernatural forces.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> First, when the dog proactively builds the fire, then there's a point to be made.  Otherwise it's no different than a buzzard happening across an easy meal.
> 
> Second, I think you guys are going way out of your way to keep from admitting the obvious here.  People build air conditioning, and heaters.  Airplanes and cars so we can do what we want where we want.



The buzzard evolved to find that easy meal... and that's pretty much all he does right now.

MACRO... in 100,000 years, maybe dogs would have learned how to build fires if they don't have humans to mooch off of. Think past outside of the last 40 years of your lifetime, 237 years of the US. 2000 years since Jesus was around... another 2000 years before that even... 

I'm not saying we're not different... and our brain being different, somehow, not necessarily from it being designed by any being to be that way, but just because is our evolution... our ability to make things... is our evolution. It's different, but not so different that it must be from the doing of a god.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 27, 2013)

JFS said:


> Totally admit that's what allows people to make the rules that allow us to kill whatever we want for our own benefit.  Still deny that means we are inhabited by unseen and immeasurable supernatural forces.



Specifically, unseen and immesurable supernatural forces *that any other animal isn't also filled with.*


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> First, when the dog proactively builds the fire, then there's a point to be made.  Otherwise it's no different than a buzzard happening across an easy meal.
> 
> Second, I think you guys are going way out of your way to keep from admitting the obvious here.  People build air conditioning, and heaters.  Airplanes and cars so we can do what we want where we want.



So then there could be just as much of an argument from an animal, like an alligator or a bug like a roach, that we humans are inferior because we need all of this extra stuff to survive... when they've got all they need attached to them that has helped them survive much longer.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> I only read the first and last post of this thread, and I am thoroughly amused.
> Good stuff guys.....



That is how most homework seems to get done on here anyway. Why be any different.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You have no idea of what any other animal or species can appreciate or thinks of as art. You are trying to use human terms for all species. If a monkey finds a rare gem, dazzling rock or discarded soda bottle it may appreciate it in a way (similar in feeling)that humans find art beautiful. But obviously not exactly as humans would then take it and hang it on a wall. But an animal could take it and hide it so it can go get it and admire it later. They may carry it with them wherever they go. Some other animal might see them with it and want to take it for them-self. KoKo the gorilla likes puppies and kittens. You have to actually search for examples before you dismiss them. They are not going to be like having a Cheeta dressed in an Armani suit at the Gugenheim checking out paintings but animals on very basic levels do seem to show appreciation for certain things.



You gotta be kidding me.  Step away from The Disney Channel.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You gotta be kidding me.  Step away from The Disney Channel.



No need to watch Disney to witness Goofy in full action.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 27, 2013)

What does it mean to be human?  We are the only ones that came up with Viagra.  We win...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 27, 2013)

Because we're the only animals who needed it... That's a PROBLEM....


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 27, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So then there could be just as much of an argument from an animal, like an alligator or a bug like a roach, that we humans are inferior because we need all of this extra stuff to survive... when they've got all they need attached to them that has helped them survive much longer.



I take a day off to put up corn and this place turns into a psychiatric ward;monkeys toting around gems, dogs building fires, cats and dogs living together....


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I take a day off to put up corn and this place turns into a psychiatric ward;monkeys toting around gems, dogs building fires, cats and dogs living together....



Lol


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I take a day off to put up corn and this place turns into a psychiatric ward;monkeys toting around gems, dogs building fires, cats and dogs living together....



I can post a video of my dog making a fire if you want  I crammed some evolution in to her last night.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 27, 2013)

Let's try something else:

If we are different because we used fire, how did we become different to use fire before we determined to use it?  If cooking wiht fire has driven our intellectual evolution, what drove it before that point.

And, come on guys......dogs ain't evolving to build fires.  Not gonna happen in a million lifetimes.  They like it because it's warm.  Snakes like to lay up on rocks.  Pigs like to wallow in the mud.  They happen across these things rather than creating them.  Instead of tossing out all kinds of maybe's, can we at least deal with reality?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 27, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So then there could be just as much of an argument from an animal, like an alligator or a bug like a roach, that we humans are inferior because we need all of this extra stuff to survive... when they've got all they need attached to them that has helped them survive much longer.



Yet, miraculously, we survived without it.....that's the point.  Survival of the fittest should have killed us off 100k years ago.  However, despite our physical shortcmoings (lack of strength, speed, weapons, natural camoflage) we still managed to evolve to the point that we decided to use fire....which made us super-cool compared to all the other species which have gone extinct for lack of the items mentioned above?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Let's try something else:
> 
> If we are different because we used fire, how did we become different to use fire before we determined to use it?  If cooking wiht fire has driven our intellectual evolution, what drove it before that point.
> 
> And, come on guys......dogs ain't evolving to build fires.  Not gonna happen in a million lifetimes.  They like it because it's warm.  Snakes like to lay up on rocks.  Pigs like to wallow in the mud.  They happen across these things rather than creating them.  Instead of tossing out all kinds of maybe's, can we at least deal with reality?



Reality? You now want to deal with Reality in a place where an invisible super "us" is the answer waiting around every corner. Sure. yeah. OK.
In your reality snakes and donkeys talk! 
Show us the reality, just cut to the chase and start at the point you all are trying to make......"GOD is the reason we are human". Please give us the reality there.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yet, miraculously, we survived without it.....that's the point.  Survival of the fittest should have killed us off 100k years ago.  However, despite our physical shortcmoings (lack of strength, speed, weapons, natural camoflage) we still managed to evolve to the point that we decided to use fire....which made us super-cool compared to all the other species which have gone extinct for lack of the items mentioned above?



Each and every single creature,plant or animal on this planet is here right now due to the same reasons we are here right now. They have, through survival, adaptation and evolution, everything they need to survive. Despite the best religious efforts, humans have not been on this planet since the first week. MANY other species have lived longer than and have already been extinct longer than the entire human race has existed. Humans have not outlasted anything due to our sheer brilliance or our connection to a God. Our entire existence is a blip on the timeline. We are just the top dogs right now.

In school one of my teachers drew a 6 foot line on the chalk board. Near the far right end he put a period on the line and said that represents the entire amount of time humans have been on this Earth. He then asked where would the birth of Jesus fit on this line and a few kids came up and put dots on the 6 foot line anywhere from the middle to the far right hand side. The teacher then had them sit down and he explained to the class that the birth of Jesus was around 2000 years ago and lies in a spot inside of that small period he initially put on the 6 foot line and within that period is every single event that has happened since the first human existed. THATS how long we have been on this Earth.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Let's try something else:
> 
> If we are different because we used fire, how did we become different to use fire before we determined to use it?  If cooking wiht fire has driven our intellectual evolution, what drove it before that point.
> 
> And, come on guys......dogs ain't evolving to build fires.  Not gonna happen in a million lifetimes.  They like it because it's warm.  Snakes like to lay up on rocks.  Pigs like to wallow in the mud.  They happen across these things rather than creating them.  Instead of tossing out all kinds of maybe's, can we at least deal with reality?



Let's deal with reality. Evolution happens... It has happened in HUGE ways. I'm not talking the life popped out of mud stuff... Just the stuff that you can see happened. I feel like saying that it's not going to happen in a million lifetimes is dishonest... I feel like you're completely underestimating how long that is.

If you're referring to reality as what we see right now, then we can't talk about evolution at all... which is what's happening here. Again... think MACRO. ENORMOUS SCALE. Thinking micro - my dog will NEVER build a fire. I agree with you. My particular dog could try 1 million of her own lifetimes to get it right and she won't.. I 100% not only believe that, but pretty much guarantee it... Over 1 million dog lifetimes, that's say 10 million years, there will be 500 trillion puppies being born and dying (guessing and assuming). Deal with the reality of that. 

Talking about dogs, humans have had a hand in their evolution over the past several hundred years. We modify nature - yes (I agree we're DIFFERENT from the dogs in that respect) by selecting traits we like and want and breeding to get them. We accelerate a forced or controlled evolution or un-natural selection. We have working dogs, toy dogs and a bunch of others. We have dogs that can herd livestock for us or just look like they belong to a gangster. Again, guessing and assuming, we've taken the last 2000 years of breeding dogs for specific traits and crammed in the kind of differences in those 2000 years that might take 20,000 years of natural selection. I'm just throwing out the times there, just think of the perspective... What can 1 million years do?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yet, miraculously, we survived without it.....that's the point.  Survival of the fittest should have killed us off 100k years ago.  However, despite our physical shortcmoings (lack of strength, speed, weapons, natural camoflage) we still managed to evolve to the point that we decided to use fire....which made us super-cool compared to all the other species which have gone extinct for lack of the items mentioned above?



Because that was OUR evolution. Just like the evolution of the longer neck of a giraffe was their evolution.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Reality? You now want to deal with Reality in a place where an invisible super "us" is the answer waiting around every corner. Sure. yeah. OK.
> In your reality snakes and donkeys talk!
> Show us the reality, just cut to the chase and start at the point you all are trying to make......"GOD is the reason we are human". Please give us the reality there.



Or, you could try answering the question


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yet, miraculously, we survived without it.....that's the point.  Survival of the fittest should have killed us off 100k years ago.  However, despite our physical shortcmoings (lack of strength, speed, weapons, natural camoflage) we still managed to evolve to the point that we decided to use fire....which made us super-cool compared to all the other species which have gone extinct for lack of the items mentioned above?



Yet miraculously, EVERY other animal on the planet that is still around, survived without the internet or a cell phone... or embracing fire...


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Or, you could try answering the question



Eat, sleep, reproduce. Those things drive us all before, during and after fire.
Now more about your reality......
Tell us how you think it is. What is your take on the pre-fire existence?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 27, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Because that was OUR evolution. Just like the evolution of the longer neck of a giraffe was their evolution.



Very different evolution.  Theirs was physical, ours was intellectual.  

Which came first, intelligence to build a fire, or, fire cooked food aiding intelligence?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Eat, sleep, reproduce. Those things drive us all before, during and after fire.
> Now more about your reality......



Those things drive most critters.  We are very alone with our special brand of evolving.

Don't get me wrong, I believe life has evolved, but I also am able too see that we are very much different than most other things.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Eat, sleep, reproduce. Those things drive us all before, during and after fire.
> Now more about your reality......
> Tell us how you think it is. What is your take on the pre-fire existence?



Survival of the fittest, Dino's eating things, lots of ferns and crazy looking critters running around.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Very different evolution.  Theirs was physical, ours was intellectual.
> 
> Which came first, intelligence to build a fire, or, fire cooked food aiding intelligence?



Limited intelligence. Taking advantage of an opportunity(using fire started by something else like lightening etc) then figuring out how to keep fire burning so it can be traveled with, then figuring how how to make fire on our own. That stuff didn't blow up overnight like a twitter post. It took a LONG LONG time.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Survival of the fittest, Dino's eating things, lots of ferns and crazy looking critters running around.



Ok and I agree. Where do the early pre-fire humans fit in there?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Limited intelligence. Taking advantage of an opportunity(using fire started by something else like lightening etc) then figuring out how to keep fire burning so it can be traveled with, then figuring how how to make fire on our own. That stuff didn't blow up overnight like a twitter post. It took a LONG LONG time.



I wonder why humans are the only ones to use fire? After all, there are millions of species.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Those things drive most critters.  We are very alone with our special brand of evolving.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I believe life has evolved, but I also am able too see that we are very much different than most other things.



Yes we are special. No comparison between us and a Sea Urchin. A Sea Urchin isn't gonna make a living on Wall Street and you or I are not gonna be successful living on a Coral Reef. Everything here is special in their own way(s).


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I wonder why humans are the only ones to use fire? After all, there are millions of species.



The next step is to parlay that thought into some research and really study as much information as you can gather about fire and humans using it as a tool. After say....10 years, maybe you can come back and tell us all what your journey consisted of and if you have reached any conclusions or at least some thoughts on what would be more likely than not. I think that would be the absolute best way to get to the bottom of that question instead of expecting to solve it here in 3 pages where closed minds cannot accept any information that does not go along with their preconceived notions. Free your mind....and the rest will follow.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The next step is to parlay that thought into some research and really study as much information as you can gather about fire and humans using it as a tool. After say....10 years, maybe you can come back and tell us all what your journey consisted of and if you have reached any conclusions or at least some thoughts on what would be more likely than not. I think that would be the absolute best way to get to the bottom of that question instead of expecting to solve it here in 3 pages


LOL, your non answer to the question is an answer all to itself.



> where closed minds cannot accept any information that does not go along with their preconceived notions. Free your mind....and the rest will follow.


It kills me that people who are considered religious are never considered objective in their worldview, yet if you're considered irreligious you're considered to be completely objective.

You're worldview doesn't expose you to any preconceived notions? Please.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The next step is to parlay that thought into some research and really study as much information as you can gather about fire and humans using it as a tool.


The point was that humans are the only species out of millions and possibly billions that use fire, or electricity or a number of other things.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> LOL, your non answer to the question is an answer all to itself.
> 
> 
> It kills me that people who are considered religious are never considered objective in their worldview, yet if you're considered irreligious you're considered to be completely objective.
> ...



I cut hair for a living. What answer do you expect to get  AND that you would accept? I have done some limited reading on the subject but am by no means well versed let alone an authority on the subject so WHAT answer could I give you other than to take the time to find out what you want to know?

My worldview is ever changing as I am able to look rationally at both sides of an issue and make a rational decision based off of as much information as I can find out about each side. If something drastically changes at a later time I can and have changed my mind about things. But without ever truly being able to know everything about everything, going with the  "More Likely than Not, based off of the available information" has worked for me very well in a variety of situations in my lifetime.

I enjoy conversing with you, I respect your knowledge, but I am gonna find an alternate source(s) to see if what you say is true can be backed up. You should do the same.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The point was that humans are the only species out of millions and possibly billions that use fire, or electricity or a number of other things.



What exactly are you saying that proves?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Very different evolution.  Theirs was physical, ours was intellectual.
> 
> Which came first, intelligence to build a fire, or, fire cooked food aiding intelligence?



I thought the theory was protein rich food aiding intelligence. I'm not on board with that one. I'm not saying I know the details anyway. I agree that we're different. As they are different from us like I've tried to show you. I AGREE, DIFFERENT.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The point was that humans are the only species out of millions and possibly billions that use fire, or electricity or a number of other things.



I agree with that totally.

Now you tell me exactly what that means. We are the only species to use fire and electricity, therefore....... and we are able to do this because........and.....and......and.......


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Those things drive most critters.  We are very alone with our special brand of evolving.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I believe life has evolved, but I also am able too see that we are very much different than most other things.



I agree with all of this.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 27, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I wonder why humans are the only ones to use fire? After all, there are millions of species.



Talked about that already. MANY species have things that make them unique. And JB said it... How does using fire point toward a god?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> What exactly are you saying that proves?





bullethead said:


> I agree with that totally.
> 
> Now you tell me exactly what that means. We are the only species to use fire and electricity, therefore....... and we are able to do this because........and.....and......and.......





TripleXBullies said:


> Talked about that already. MANY species have things that make them unique. And JB said it... How does using fire point toward a god?


It doesn't prove anything, but it is evidence that humans are intellectually special, and if we are intellectually special, we probably didn't evolve from inanimate unintelligent matter from an unintelligent cycle of evolution in an unintelligent universe.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 27, 2013)

I can agree intellectually special is a possibility... If you're you're using that logic, then are you saying that it's easier to believe that the life of a monkey or other animals, evolved from inanimate unintelligent matter???

A lot of animals can use their senses better than we can. Maybe even "sixth" senses, like animals going for cover because they know a storm is coming when a human can't really perceive that. Bats and dolphins can echo locate and their brains can interpret that.. Yes, I know, we built sonar... but they do it out of the box...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 27, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It doesn't prove anything, but it is evidence that humans are intellectually special, and if we are intellectually special, we probably didn't evolve from inanimate unintelligent matter from an unintelligent cycle of evolution in an unintelligent universe.



Actually, I think we got to that point by talking about a soul. How does any of our intellect point to a soul.. I can see how intellect can point to the formulation of the idea of a soul and a  god.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It doesn't prove anything, but it is evidence that humans are intellectually special, and if we are intellectually special, we probably didn't evolve from inanimate unintelligent matter from an unintelligent cycle of evolution in an unintelligent universe.



Well if all life did not come from inanimate unintelligent matter (as has been said by you in other threads) then are we actually really any more special than any other life on the planet?
Or is your position now, Humans were poofed here by a God but everything else because they are not intellectually special were just whipped up by whatever means?

This is what I know, errr, am confident in . We and everything on this planet is made from matter and materials that every other thing in this Universe is made from. I have no idea exactly HOW it all started but I am confident it is NOT how the Bible or any other religion says it happened. Therefore I have ruled out these religions versions and their Gods. There is a bunch of things we do not know, may never find out during my lifetime and possibly may never know as a species but the information that is available on how the Universe formed, how stars and planets have formed and how things may have come from all these other things sounds a lot better to me than Invisible Magic Buddies. I continue to search for the latest and greatest info and am open to all resources. I can die tomorrow and be content that I do not know it all but confident in what I think is the most likely possibility based off of what I have been able to know to this point.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I can agree intellectually special is a possibility... If you're you're using that logic, then are you saying that it's easier to believe that the life of a monkey or other animals, evolved from inanimate unintelligent matter???
> 
> A lot of animals can use their senses better than we can. Maybe even "sixth" senses, like animals going for cover because they know a storm is coming when a human can't really perceive that. Bats and dolphins can echo locate and their brains can interpret that.. Yes, I know, we built sonar... but they do it out of the box...



We are great at mimicking and copying things that other animals posses as standard equipment. We couldn't survive "as is" without being like something else.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Ok and I agree. Where do the early pre-fire humans fit in there?



We're they humans (not human-like) pre-fire?  There are flaws in every proposed human ancestor.  One I know of is the way the spine connects to the skull.  Not the case with Neanderthals, but in reality, they were basically really ugly humans.  Genetic study's have indicated inter breeding with humans. This is never possible between species.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> We are great at mimicking and copying things that other animals posses as standard equipment. We couldn't survive "as is" without being like something else.



So, we're who the chameleons want to be?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 27, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Actually, I think we got to that point by talking about a soul. How does any of our intellect point to a soul.



Because of the reasons you and I have consistently agreed on in this thread.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> We're they humans (not human-like) pre-fire?  There are flaws in every proposed human ancestor.  One I know of is the way the spine connects to the skull.  Not the case with Neanderthals, but in reality, they were basically really ugly humans.  Genetic study's have indicated inter breeding with humans. This is never possible between species.



Flaws?
Give us a for instance.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Flaws?
> Give us a for instance.



I did.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I did.



Are you saying early humans had flaws like where the spine connects to the skull?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2013)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/becoming-human.html


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 27, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Actually, I think we got to that point by talking about a soul. How does any of our intellect point to a soul.. I can see how intellect can point to the formulation of the idea of a soul and a  god.



Alright after 2 days and 100 quarts of corn put in the freezer I have a minute or two to post. 

There is a lot of evidence of the existence of what we think of as the soul through near death experiences(NDEs).  The Near Death Experience Research Foundation (NDERF) has been cataloging NDEs from all over the world.  Regardless of your theistic stance it's fascinating to read some of the accounts.  Quite a few are medically documented.  Personally I have witnessed one such experience when I worked in the E.R.   We had a guy going down the tubes and we were losing him.  We were all over him starting I.V.s, connecting him to the defibrilator, etc. and he said, "I can see the back of your heads." and he was gone.  We got him back and he told us everything we had done in vivid detail.  He said he was above us looking down and it was like watching a movie, but he knew it was him that we were working on but he was detached.

These NDEs may or may not back up Theism, but there is one thing for certain:  The medical documentation along with the personal accounts provide rock solid evidence that we have something (personality or soul) that survives death.  Personally I think it is what the Bible calls the Soul and that along with the Spirit is what defines personhood.

Here's the link:  http://www.nderf.org/
Like I said, it's fascinating reading.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 27, 2013)

Fire is the key.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Are you saying early humans had flaws like where the spine connects to the skull?



No, I am saying the manner in which the spine connects to the skull indicates the skeltons of those species we are calling "human" might not be as close as you might think.

I think it is called the foramen magnum.  It will be positioned differently according to how the creature walks.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 28, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Because of the reasons you and I have consistently agreed on in this thread.



I agree that we're different. So that means we must have a soul? Based on that any other animal with a unique trait has a soul too.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Alright after 2 days and 100 quarts of corn put in the freezer I have a minute or two to post.
> 
> There is a lot of evidence of the existence of what we think of as the soul through near death experiences(NDEs).  The Near Death Experience Research Foundation (NDERF) has been cataloging NDEs from all over the world.  Regardless of your theistic stance it's fascinating to read some of the accounts.  Quite a few are medically documented.  Personally I have witnessed one such experience when I worked in the E.R.   We had a guy going down the tubes and we were losing him.  We were all over him starting I.V.s, connecting him to the defibrilator, etc. and he said, "I can see the back of your heads." and he was gone.  We got him back and he told us everything we had done in vivid detail.  He said he was above us looking down and it was like watching a movie, but he knew it was him that we were working on but he was detached.
> 
> ...



Rock solid? Hardly. I can see the idea... but if I am in a room, I can envision what it would look like to hover above it.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 28, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> Fire is the key.



To what? God? Life?

I can see how the embrace of fire could have started us down this DIFFERENT evolutionary path that we've taken.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 28, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So that means we must have a soul? Based on that any other animal with a unique trait has a soul too.



No.  

You and I agree that we are different.  We might also agree that every creature is unique.  Where I think we are disagreeing is our evolutionary path.

The "no-god" position will believe that man is the way he is because he didn't need much else.  We didn't have to be fast because we had tools to defend ourselves.  Same with natural camoflage, physical strength, etc.

My belief is that we didn't need these things because we had intelligence.  Our level of intelligence is absolutely unique in the history of the world (we aren't digging up dino cities).  So which came first?  The intelligence or the tools?  It seems as if the intelligence would have to come first because our evolution would have favored physical improvements otherwise.....as it does with every other species.  But....how is it possible for our intellectual evolution to come before we had the capacity for these things you guys are giving credit to evolution?

That's why I believe there is something "different" about us.  Something that makes us stand out, and dominate the world.  

If we are all "natural," then our cities, airplanes, toilets, etc. are just humans dwelling in their natural environment, and nothing would be more natural than an old styrophome cooler floating down a polluted river, because that's what humans naturally do.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 28, 2013)

I still agree with that... Not really following the last sentence though... Either way, I don't see that it points to a soul.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 28, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> ... Not really following the last sentence though...



Unless we have something which seperates us from nature, everything we do is natural.  All of our pollution, etc. is nothing more than humans being human.  So, trash in a polluted river is no less natural than a pile of bear poop in the woods.



TripleXBullies said:


> Either way, I don't see that it points to a soul.



Then, I think we are at an impass.  I think there must be something that sets us apart, and whatever it is drove our development in a much different direction that the hippos, giraffes, whatever.

I do have a thought......does a Giraffe have a long neck because he likes to eat out of trees, or does he like to eat out of trees because he has a long neck?  Grass worked well for everything else.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 28, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Rock solid? Hardly. I can see the idea... but if I am in a room, I can envision what it would look like to hover above it.



You know TXB if you applied the skepticism that you apply on this forum to you daily activities you would cease to function.  For it takes a certain amount of reasoning just to believe the floor is going to support your weight when you step out of bed every morning.  I find it somewhat hypocritical of you in that you trust your ability to reason when it suits your needs, but yet you express blind skepticism of this same reasoning process when used by others offer a position.  As far as NDEs go, like I said, I don't know actually what they point to with regards to theism, or even if they do at all,  but I do know the same medical documentation that is used to document them is considered as admissible, valid and credible in any court of law in this Country, but I guess it's easier to cry your skeptical cry of "wolf" and stick your head in the sand
than actually apply some reasonable thought to what is being presented.


----------



## JFS (Jun 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> apply some reasonable thought to what is being presented.



You don't want reasonable thought, you want fanciful speculation.  Reasonable thought concludes hallucinations are natural occurrences, not supernatural tourism.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You know TXB if you applied the skepticism that you apply on this forum to you daily activities you would cease to function.  For it takes a certain amount of reasoning just to believe the floor is going to support your weight when you step out of bed every morning.  I find it somewhat hypocritical of you in that you trust your ability to reason when it suits your needs, but yet you express blind skepticism of this same reasoning process when used by others offer a position.  As far as NDEs go, like I said, I don't know actually what they point to with regards to theism, or even if they do at all,  but I do know the same medical documentation that is used to document them is considered as admissible, valid and credible in any court of law in this Country, but I guess it's easier to cry your skeptical cry of "wolf" and stick your head in the sand
> than actually apply some reasonable thought to what is being presented.



That's funny... You're the one crying wolf.. You're saying something is there when there seems to be nothing... I'm saying nothing is there when there seems to be nothing. The cry wolf analogy didn't really work for you. I see that an NDE can point to a lot of things. Hallucinations can be invoked by a lot of things that are also medically documented. My grandfather explained a NDE to me when I was young... It was emotionally moving. It could have been that he really spoke to god. He was convinced he did. I, now, doubt it. 

I apply skepticism all over. I am not skeptical that the floor in my house will support me. I am not skeptical that the bed I lay down in will support me. I've seen them work for me and plenty of other people before me. Daily activities happen all the time... Daily probably... They become second nature... Like believing in a god has become for most people. You believe because you believe... It's second nature... which isn't necessarily a good thing... It's second nature to automatically believe that a NDE must be ROCK SOLID proof of a soul..... I can see that it is evidence... but in no way rock solid anything...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 28, 2013)

JFS said:


> You don't want reasonable thought, you want fanciful speculation.  Reasonable thought concludes hallucinations are natural occurrences, not supernatural tourism.



There are plenty of groups still inducing hallucinations with chemicals and believing that they are closer to their god. When they do so using compounds that western understanding calls "DRUGS" most would be inclined to be skeptical... When I was a kid I tried to make myself faint. You know what the kids were doing... and I got light headed and saw stars... I've seen stars when other things happened more recently in my life too... Seeing weird things HAPPENS when your brain isn't working properly. So Why automatically believe that seeing something unbelievable while your body is distressed (NEAR DEATH) is PROOF of a soul??? I see absolutely no reason to believe that and absolutely every reason to be skeptical of it. When I have seen stars, something I know isn't really there, I absolutely do not believe it to be any kind of evidence of a soul.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 28, 2013)

JFS said:


> You don't want reasonable thought, you want fanciful speculation.  Reasonable thought concludes hallucinations are natural occurrences, not supernatural tourism.



Really?  I surmised "reasonable thought" entailed at the minimum, a thorough analysis of the evidence before making an informed decision on what can be concluded from it.  I would suggest you have provided neither, for if you had you would have realized that these NDEs are documented by Athiest as well as Theist from all religions.  What did they all conclude from the experience?  That there is a God? No.  That there is a Heaven or He11? No.  Simply that there is something, some part of them that existed after their physical death.....something that resembles what we recognize as a soul, but I guess even that smacks too much of Theism for you to acknowledge; evidence be danged.

 That being the case may I ask you this,  "If hallucinations are natural occurrences, how do you know your thoughts are reasonable and not just the outpouring of your natural hallucinations?  Again your argument becomes absurd when taken to its logical conclusion.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 28, 2013)

SFD... those groups who chew coca leaves or a beetle nut and claim to be close to their god when they are that way... you would have no problem ruling out as complete junk... While I am not even saying that about your NDE theory... I am saying that I don't believe it, yet I could be wrong - SKEPTICAL.

You apply skepticism or to a higher degree just as much as I do... just to different things... and it rubs you wrong when someone does applies that skepticism to your beloved thoughts...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Really?  I surmised "reasonable thought" entailed at the minimum, a thorough analysis of the evidence before making an informed decision on what can be concluded from it.  I would suggest you have provided neither, for if you had you would have realized that these NDEs are documented by Athiest as well as Theist from all religions.  What did they all conclude from the experience?  That there is a God? No.  That there is a Heaven or He11? No.  Simply that there is something, some part of them that existed after their physical death.....something that resembles what we recognize as a soul, but I guess even that smacks too much of Theism for you to acknowledge; evidence be danged.
> 
> That being the case may I ask you this,  "If hallucinations are natural occurrences, how do you know your thoughts are reasonable and not just the outpouring of your natural hallucinations?  Again your argument becomes absurd when taken to its logical conclusion.



There was no complete physical death. Unless that is to say that modern medical science can now duplicate what you claim happened to the son of your god. They are NEAR death experiences... and I know from experience, when my brain isn't work properly because of lack of oxygen, being hit hard or something like that, it does some abnormal things.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 28, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> That's funny... You're the one crying wolf.. You're saying something is there when there seems to be nothing... I'm saying nothing is there when there seems to be nothing. The cry wolf analogy didn't really work for you. I see that an NDE can point to a lot of things. Hallucinations can be invoked by a lot of things that are also medically documented. My grandfather explained a NDE to me when I was young... It was emotionally moving. It could have been that he really spoke to god. He was convinced he did. I, now, doubt it.
> 
> I apply skepticism all over. I am not skeptical that the floor in my house will support me. I am not skeptical that the bed I lay down in will support me. I've seen them work for me and plenty of other people before me. Daily activities happen all the time... Daily probably... They become second nature... Like believing in a god has become for most people. You believe because you believe... It's second nature... which isn't necessarily a good thing... It's second nature to automatically believe that a NDE must be ROCK SOLID proof of a soul..... I can see that it is evidence... but in no way rock solid anything...




Do you even realize the absurdity of the hoops you are having to jump through to deny God.  For you to deny the personal experience and conclusion that your Grandfather drew leaves me dumbfounded.  Unless he was delusional, a bald faced pathological liar or prone to JFS's " natural hallucinations" why would you doubt a reliable, honest first person source.  Do you even realize the corner you have painted yourself into by disregarding such a source.  In essence not only have you erased all of history from this moment back through all of posterity, but you in effect deny every single event that you don't personally experience.  Do you really live your life under the pretext of "Unless I experience it and interpret it, it doesn't exist." , because I don't think you do.  I think you only apply that absurd line of reasoning to protect your ideology.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 28, 2013)

It is absolutely no more absurd than the hoops you have to jump through to accept any god. The only reason you don't see the hoops is because it's second nature to you at this point in your life. 

I am glad I have dumbfounded you...

It is not unless I experience it. It is if I experience it or I can buy it more than any other possibility. It is people like you who are so intolerant of any other possibilities and get all worked up about them that adds to the bad rap of what you represent.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Do you really live your life under the pretext of "Unless I experience it and interpret it, it doesn't exist." , because I don't think you do.  I think you only apply that absurd line of reasoning to protect your ideology.



Which ideology am I a trying to protect exactly?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 28, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> SFD... those groups who chew coca leaves or a beetle nut and claim to be close to their god when they are that way... you would have no problem ruling out as complete junk... While I am not even saying that about your NDE theory... I am saying that I don't believe it, yet I could be wrong - SKEPTICAL.
> 
> You apply skepticism or to a higher degree just as much as I do... just to different things... and it rubs you wrong when someone does applies that skepticism to your beloved thoughts...



Listen I don't have a dawg in the hunt as far as NDEs go.  They neither prove nor disprove God.  They are however very good evidence for the existence of the soul.  That in itself should not be per se threatening to an Atheist, because some Atheist do believe in the concept of a soul.  Buddhism itself is an atheistic belief system that embraces the concept as do many New Age atheistic belief systems.  

I was asked to provide evidence for the existence of a soul.  I could have pointed to the Bible which is the one I consider authoritative, but I provided one that is accepted by most IRREGARDLESS OF THEISTIC BELIEFS.  That being the case, I would suggest what you do with it says more about you than the evidence.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Do you even realize the corner you have painted yourself into by disregarding such a source.  In essence not only have you erased all of history from this moment back through all of posterity



Apparently I don't. I have erased history???? I don't see that at all, you'll definitely have to explain. If I've erased history, you should be calling me GOD. ALL CAPS.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Listen I don't have a dawg in the hunt as far as NDEs go.  They neither prove nor disprove God.  They are however very good evidence for the existence of the soul.  That in itself should not be per se threatening to an Atheist, because some Atheist do believe in the concept of a soul.  Buddhism itself is an atheistic belief system that embraces the concept as do many New Age atheistic belief systems.
> 
> I was asked to provide evidence for the existence of a soul.  I could have pointed to the Bible which is the one I consider authoritative, but I provided one that is accepted by most IRREGARDLESS OF THEISTIC BELIEFS.  That being the case, I would suggest what you do with it says more about you than the evidence.




I've accepted that as evidence... yet you presented it as ROCK SOLID PROOF. I've submitted that it could be evidence of a failing mind being deprived of oxygen using examples that you have likely experienced yourself... and I've dumbfounded you....


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That being the case, I would suggest what you do with it says more about you than the evidence.



Come on man. I'm not the A in this forum that goes around saying that anyone who worships a god has a mental handicap.  I feel the same way about you though.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 28, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> It is not unless I experience it. It is if I experience it or I can buy it more than any other possibility.



By your own words, specifically with regards to your Grandfather's NDE, this is NOT what you practice.  I'm assuming your Grandfather had integrity, and if so you disregarded that integrity for the sake of protecting your ideology.



TripleXBullies said:


> It is people like you who are so intolerant of any other possibilities and get all worked up about them that adds to the bad rap of what you represent.



I'm not intolerant of your beliefs no more than I am of homosexuality, but tolerance and acceptance are two completely different concepts.  Don't expect me to accept your beliefs under the guise of tolerance.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 28, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Apparently I don't. I have erased history???? I don't see that at all, you'll definitely have to explain. If I've erased history, you should be calling me GOD. ALL CAPS.



What?  TXB all caps ain't good enough?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> By your own words, specifically with regards to your Grandfather's NDE, this is NOT what you practice.  I'm assuming your Grandfather had integrity, and if so you disregarded that integrity for the sake of protecting your ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not intolerant of your beliefs no more than I am of homosexuality, but tolerance and acceptance are two completely different concepts.  Don't expect me to accept your beliefs under the guise of tolerance.



I'm not saying he didn't believe it was a conversation between his soul a god. He didn't lie about. I am not disregarding his integrity at all. He told me what he thought happened. I interpret that differently than he did, yet I know that his interpretation is a possibility. 

Getting worked up about it, talking about absurdity and that I must have erased history to come to a conclusion... isn't tolerance at all..


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 28, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I've accepted that as evidence... yet you presented it as ROCK SOLID PROOF. I've submitted that it could be evidence of a failing mind being deprived of oxygen using examples that you have likely experienced yourself... and I've dumbfounded you....



Listen, it would be admissible as evidence in any court and because it is medical evidence it has inherent scientific veracity.
Rock solid proof as you well know is a figure of speech, but what more evidence could you possibly obtain for such a type of event?  I ask you in all honesty?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 28, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I'm not saying he didn't believe it was a conversation between his soul a god. He didn't lie about. I am not disregarding his integrity at all. He told me what he thought happened. I interpret that differently than he did, yet I know that his interpretation is a possibility.
> 
> Getting worked up about it, talking about absurdity and that I must have erased history to come to a conclusion... isn't tolerance at all..



My point if is you are going to disregard a credible first person account of an event, you are going to have to disregard not only all of history, but also anything that happens outside of your physical presence.


----------



## JFS (Jun 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Buddhism itself is an atheistic belief system that embraces the concept



Not quite right.  Google "anatta"

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htm


----------



## JFS (Jun 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> My point if is you are going to disregard a credible first person account of an event



Not disregard, rationally interpret.  NDEs can be produced by ketamine.  Is it a holy drug, or is there a reasonable explanation that doesn't require you to believe in ghosts?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Near-death_experience


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 28, 2013)

JFS said:


> Not disregard, rationally interpret.  NDEs can be produced by ketamine.  Is it a holy drug, or is there a reasonable explanation that doesn't require you to believe in ghosts?
> 
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Near-death_experience



Ketamine is not given during resuscitation so its not the answer to NDEs.   Its an NMDA antagonist used in anesthesia in very limited patient populations.  It's also the base for ecstasy, the street drug.
It doesn't produce NDEs.  It produces anesthesia but spares the brainstem function of respiration.  At low doses it produces powerful hallucinations and is used very cautiously in people with PTSD for obvious reasons.
Pick another explanation.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> My point if is you are going to disregard a credible first person account of an event, you are going to have to disregard not only all of history, but also anything that happens outside of your physical presence.



You disregard plenty of that kind of stuff too.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Listen, it would be admissible as evidence in any court and because it is medical evidence it has inherent scientific veracity.
> Rock solid proof as you well know is a figure of speech, but what more evidence could you possibly obtain for such a type of event?  I ask you in all honesty?



I'm not saying there is anything else that can create rock solid proof of something like that. I realize "rock solid proof" is a figure of speech... but that figure of speech is COMPLETELY different then saying admissible evidence. Evidence like that might be admissible, but it's far from conclusive or rock solid proof.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 28, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It doesn't prove anything, but it is evidence that humans are intellectually special, and if we are intellectually special, we probably didn't evolve from inanimate unintelligent matter from an unintelligent cycle of evolution in an unintelligent universe.






TripleXBullies said:


> I can agree intellectually special is a possibility... If you're you're using that logic, then are you saying that it's easier to believe that the life of a monkey or other animals, evolved from inanimate unintelligent matter???



This was for you String.


----------



## JFS (Jun 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It doesn't produce NDEs.



Not the point.  If you think you are experiencing god, it must be god, right?  First person perception trumps, right?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ketamine is not given during resuscitation so its not the answer to NDEs.   Its an NMDA antagonist used in anesthesia in very limited patient populations.  It's also the base for ecstasy, the street drug.
> It doesn't produce NDEs.  It produces anesthesia but spares the brainstem function of respiration.  At low doses it produces powerful hallucinations and is used very cautiously in people with PTSD for obvious reasons.
> Pick another explanation.



NEAR death experience. This means at some point the person was CLOSE to being dead. Oxygen levels to the brain are low. Hallucinations occur.
EVERYBODY dreams. Oxygen levels are reduced while sleeping. In my dreams I hold coherent in depth conversations with people that I have not seen in 25 years. I read detailed instructions to appliances that do not actually exist! I can describe in detail the intricate unique facial details of people that I have never met and for all I know do not actually exist except in a dream. I have been able to run, leap into the air and fly in my dreams all the while seeing things from an above perspective in places that I have never been to in my entire life . I can see hospital equipment that right now I could not tell you what it actually does, yet I use it in a dream. Sometimes when I try to run my legs feel like boat anchors and I can barely move. I can go on and on and on about intricate details that I have witnessed in my dreams. Some things I am quite positive I have never seen at all whatsoever in my life and some I am guessing I have seen, never paid so much as a single second of attention to, yet my brain has recorded it, stored it and accessed later. Does that mean I have a soul? Or does it mean that my brain is working?

Ever experience Deja Vu? Is that evidence that I am an out of body time traveler? Am I a God? Do I posses wizard like powers? Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster contacting me through telekinesis??
(One of two answers here; 1. No 2. Mentally Unstable)


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Is that evidence that I am an out of body time traveler?



Yes.



bullethead said:


> Am I a God?



No.



bullethead said:


> Do I posses wizard like powers?



Certainly!



bullethead said:


> Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster contacting me through telekinesis??




Uhhh....Heck Yea!




bullethead said:


> (One of two answers here; 1. No 2. Mentally Unstable)



2.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2013)

I feel much better now JB


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I feel much better now JB


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2013)

I am in some very good company

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers22.html


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 28, 2013)

Was listening to a podcast recently and the subject of NDEs came up.  They explored the same line of questioning in this thread.  I can't remember what group is undertaking the study, but the plan is to enlist the aid of emergency rooms across the country.  They will place objects on shelves above everyone and the only ones that will know what they are will be the study leaders.  Will be interesting to see what they find.

As to the argument of hallucinations, if what is being reported by the person lying on the table is true, how can that be a hallucination?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2013)

From; 
http://www.lucidity.com/NL32.OBEandLD.html


"Out of body" experiences (OBEs) are personal experiences 
during which people feel as if they are perceiving the physical 
world from a location outside of their physical bodies. At least 
5 and perhaps as many as 35 of every 100 people have had an OBE 
at least once in their lives (Blackmore, 1982). OBEs are highly 
arousing; they can be either deeply disturbing or profoundly 
moving. Understanding the nature of this widespread and potent 
experience would no doubt help us better understand the 
experience of being alive and human.

The simplest explanation is that OBEs are exactly what they 
seem: the human consciousness separating from the human body and 
traveling in a discorporate form in the physical world. Another 
idea is that they are hallucinations, but this requires an 
explanation of why so many people have the same delusion. Some of 
our experiments have led us to consider the OBE as a natural 
phenomenon arising out of normal brain processes. Thus, we 
believe that the OBE is a mental event that happens to healthy 
people. In support of this, psychologists Gabbard and Twemlow 
(1984) have concluded from surveys and psychological tests that 
the typical OBE experient is "a close approximation of the 
'average healthy American.'" (p. 40)

Our conception, also proposed by the English psychologist 
Susan Blackmore, is that an OBE begins when a person loses 
contact with sensory input from the body while remaining 
conscious (Blackmore, 1988; LaBerge - Lucidity Letter; Levitan - 
Lucidity Letter). The person retains the feeling of having a 
body, but that feeling is no longer derived from data provided by 
the senses. The "out-of-body" person also perceives a world that 
resembles the world he or she generally inhabits while awake, but 
this perception does not come from the senses either. The vivid 
body and world of the OBE is made possible by our brain's 
marvelous ability to create fully convincing images of the world, 
even in the absence of sensory information. This process is 
witnessed by each of us every night in our dreams. Indeed, all 
dreams could be called OBEs in that in them we experience events 
and places quite apart from the real location and activity of our 
bodies."


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Was listening to a podcast recently and the subject of NDEs came up.  They explored the same line of questioning in this thread.  I can't remember what group is undertaking the study, but the plan is to enlist the aid of emergency rooms across the country.  They will place objects on shelves above everyone and the only ones that will know what they are will be the study leaders.  Will be interesting to see what they find.
> 
> As to the argument of hallucinations, if what is being reported by the person lying on the table is true, how can that be a hallucination?



Look up Dr. Sam Parina and his AWARE Program


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> NEAR death experience. This means at some point the person was CLOSE to being dead. Oxygen levels to the brain are low. Hallucinations occur.
> EVERYBODY dreams. Oxygen levels are reduced while sleeping. In my dreams I hold coherent in depth conversations with people that I have not seen in 25 years. I read detailed instructions to appliances that do not actually exist! I can describe in detail the intricate unique facial details of people that I have never met and for all I know do not actually exist except in a dream. I have been able to run, leap into the air and fly in my dreams all the while seeing things from an above perspective in places that I have never been to in my entire life . I can see hospital equipment that right now I could not tell you what it actually does, yet I use it in a dream. Sometimes when I try to run my legs feel like boat anchors and I can barely move. I can go on and on and on about intricate details that I have witnessed in my dreams. Some things I am quite positive I have never seen at all whatsoever in my life and some I am guessing I have seen, never paid so much as a single second of attention to, yet my brain has recorded it, stored it and accessed later. Does that mean I have a soul? Or does it mean that my brain is working?
> 
> Ever experience Deja Vu? Is that evidence that I am an out of body time traveler? Am I a God? Do I posses wizard like powers? Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster contacting me through telekinesis??
> (One of two answers here; 1. No 2. Mentally Unstable)



You awoke from your dreams and inherently knew you were dreaming.  I think most NDEs awake/come back with the sense that the events truly occurred.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 28, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Was listening to a podcast recently and the subject of NDEs came up.  They explored the same line of questioning in this thread.  I can't remember what group is undertaking the study, but the plan is to enlist the aid of emergency rooms across the country.  They will place objects on shelves above everyone and the only ones that will know what they are will be the study leaders.  Will be interesting to see what they find.
> 
> As to the argument of hallucinations, if what is being reported by the person lying on the table is true, how can that be a hallucination?




That is an excellent point.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You awoke from your dreams and inherently knew you were dreaming.  I think most NDEs awake/come back with the sense that the events truly occurred.



Is that so? I am fairly confident that we all have had dreams where afterwards we go over the events all day and sometimes it takes a few days to ponder whether or not all, parts or some of the dream really happened at some point. I have had dreams where I interact with people like I know them all my life but never have actually met them and later on, months later, see a man or woman that I would swear was in that dream, yet I have never met them before or knowingly have seen before.

Regarding NDE's, when one sense is taken away often another is heightened. A person's heightened sense of hearing because they are unable to see could cause mental images in the brain.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That is an excellent point.



That is an excellent point but not necessarily the way it happens.
Regarding the AWARE studies that I posted earlier, the Doc seems to be announcing his release of the studies in 2010, then in 2011...2012 and early 2013. So far nothing. The chatter is that there is not much to announce since he has another book out about NDE's and does not mention anything about the AWARE program in it.
People seem to have a lot of NDE stories and specific details, yet in controlled studies the results differ dramatically.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 29, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I have had dreams where I interact with people like I know them all my life but never have actually met them and later on, months later, see a man or woman that I would swear was in that dream, yet I have never met them before or knowingly have seen before.





			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> Do I posses wizard like powers?





			
				JB0704 said:
			
		

> Certainly!



Told 'ya.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Told 'ya.



Then I will worship you because you have told me more than any god ever will, though you have done it with about the same level of fact-less information to back it up.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 29, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Then I will worship you because you have told me more than any god ever will,



No sir.  Let's not do that.  It was just my best guess using the information at hand.  I got lucky.



bullethead said:


> though you have done it with about the same level of fact-less information to back it up.



I used the information provided......and the fact that you have bear hunted in Maine


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> No sir.  Let's not do that.  It was just my best guess using the information at hand.  I got lucky.
> 
> 
> 
> I used the information provided......and the fact that you have bear hunted in Maine



Your wish is my command.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 29, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Your wish is my command.



 

Nah.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 29, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> Fire is the key.



The intentional use of it separates humans from animals, and rocks, and trees.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Nah.



I must obey you NOT to obey you. If it can be done for Tyler Durden, it shall be done for you.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 29, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> The intentional use of it separates humans from animals, and rocks, and trees.



Apparently, our accidental use led to our intentional use.....and so much more.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 29, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I must obey you NOT to obey you. If it can be done for Tyler Durden, it shall be done for you.



Tell you what, if my claiming you had wizard powers proved correct by your pretty cool dream situation leads to to such a path, then my only wish is that you might post a pic of a bear you have killed.....as I can only live such events vicariously.....same with the crazy fishing adventures people have.  I'm stuck in the Southeast, and time / resources probably won't ever let me do cool stuff like that (Our resident scientist also posts some insane fishing pics from time to time, and I am incredibly envious of folks who manage to travel in pursuit of fish and game).

After such posting, we'll all go back to these fantastic debates we have, laced with hidden zingers, and mutual respect.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Tell you what, if my claiming you had wizard powers proved correct by your pretty cool dream situation leads to to such a path, then my only wish is that you might post a pic of a bear you have killed.....as I can only live such events vicariously.....same with the crazy fishing adventures people have.  I'm stuck in the Southeast, and time / resources probably won't ever let me do cool stuff like that (Our resident scientist also posts some insane fishing pics from time to time, and I am incredibly envious of folks who manage to travel in pursuit of fish and game).
> 
> After such posting, we'll all go back to these fantastic debates we have, laced with hidden zingers, and mutual respect.



Sent you a PM


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Sent you a PM



Got it, THX!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 1, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You awoke from your dreams and inherently knew you were dreaming.  I think most NDEs awake/come back with the sense that the events truly occurred.



Dreams happen all the time.. As children, nightmares keep us up at night because we aren't used to them. Nightmares can scare adults too, but it's less likely because adults normally understand that they aren't real, no matter how real they seem. Other OBEs happen less frequently, so it's harder to convince yourself that they're not real, or only as real as dreams.

Just a thought. I've had an OBE before when I was younger. I don't believe it was proof of me having a soul... and no, I'm not disregarding my own integrity.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 1, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> ..... (Our resident scientist also posts some insane fishing pics from time to time, and I am incredibly envious of folks who manage to travel in pursuit of fish and game).
> ...



Thou shalt not covet


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Thou shalt not covet



Guilty 

But, dang, have you seen Ted's thread with the 200# Halibut?  Hard to avoid jealousy when looking at that.


----------

