Does Belief In Evolution Automatically Mean There Is No Soul?

[Rev R]

The need to not be always right, is always right.

 

Is it just so?

[Guest end3]

Reminds me of 4H.....head, heart, hands, and health in that order......the body.

 

And then you look at the cross......if the Spirit were to move in a downward direction through Christ to the "peoples".....head, heart, hands, health.

 

I gather the corporate function of the pieces drives our need to understand the beginning and the end.

[Galien]

It is always the same thing, do I have to choose between the two packages, both neatly tied up with a bow? I can be a christian or a science lover. Maybe I don't want to be either, maybe I don't want someone else's package. Maybe I want to pack my own

[Galien]

Not being one given to certainty, and not needing it, I am often puzzled by man's (and I do mean that as a gender specific term) need to be right. There are things we do know, and things we don't know. So what? I cannot see how evolution does deny the existence of a soul, never could. I don't know why the whloe question is such an either/or option for so many people. Doesn't make sense.

 

How is this not indulging in the "need" to be "right"?

 

 

How is it? I don't like having other people's ideas and perceptions of life forced on me, and then being treated like I am some kind of idiot if I don't accept them. That was one of the reasons I left christianity. Every other group who thinks they have all the answers acts exactly the same way. Think what we think or you are wrong and an idiot who knows nothing. It's a bit old.

[florduh]

I can be a christian or a science lover.

Just keep an eye on them both. You can be the Christian Science Monitor.

[Vigile]

It is always the same thing, do I have to choose between the two packages, both neatly tied up with a bow? I can be a christian or a science lover. Maybe I don't want to be either, maybe I don't want someone else's package. Maybe I want to pack my own

 

False dichotomy.

[MagickMonkey]

Not being one given to certainty, and not needing it, I am often puzzled by man's (and I do mean that as a gender specific term) need to be right.

 

I don't feel the need to always be right. It's just coincidence that I always am.

[Legion]

Imagine trying to explain our models 2000 years ago, or even 500 years ago.

Do you know what a model is?

 

I don't believe we are in too much disagreement Antlerman.

Yes, you are getting closer.

Do you think that's cute?

[Antlerman]

Imagine trying to explain our models 2000 years ago, or even 500 years ago.

Do you know what a model is?

Sure, it's those things I used to put together with glue that looked like cars, boats, spaceships, and whatnot. They usually came with decals that you wet in water and stuck on them.

 

Why do ask Captain?

 

I don't believe we are in too much disagreement Antlerman.

Yes, you are getting closer.

Do you think that's cute?

I did, but I suppose it depends how you look at it. OK, fine, you're not very close. Happy?

 

 

OK, so let's hear why you think I'm unaware of what scientific models are, and why my statement that if you tried to explain them to people of 2000 years ago it would not be understood raised a question for you to ask if I understood that they are. There are certain conceptual frameworks that would be lacking back then in order to use our models to actually communicate, or to even use anything within their context to be able create a model adequete enough for the task - which was my point.

 

Like a field of corn, I'm all ears Lt. Spock...

[Legion]

Antlerman I think you talk a lot about the feel good stuff behind science. Mystical liberation from self and all that. I guess you are trying to show that religion and science need not be antagonistic. But science, as it is practiced, is far removed from all that feel good stuff.

 

I tried to meet you halfway, but you had to get cute.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman I think you talk a lot about the feel good stuff behind science. Mystical liberation from self and all that. I guess you are trying to show that religion and science need not be antagonistic. But science, as it is practiced, is far removed from all that feel good stuff.

 

I tried to meet you halfway, but you had to get cute.

That's because you still don't understand. It's not "feel good stuff". It's not about emotions, though emotions can and do often follow an increase in awareness. Sort of like the emotions that accompany a great discovery of science. But is the emotional high from doing science, the purpose of it? Then why do you assign it to what I'm talking about? How's this, spiritual pursuit is far removed from all that feel good stuff of science? Same difference.

 

I've tried to meet you half way too, BTW. (Actually that's not quite true, since I understand and respect the pursuits you're talking about already). I guess my models failed to communicate my points - which was my whole point about talking about the context for models, wasn't it? And I was only getting 'cute' because you were making statements that I don't understanding something without qualifying or backing anything up as to how or why you said that. You just state it like its a fact, when to me it just sounds ignorant of what I actually think. What am I supposed to say to that? Hmmm.. good point? Maybe I in fact don't get something, but you're sure not explaining it to me.

[Galien]

It is always the same thing, do I have to choose between the two packages, both neatly tied up with a bow? I can be a christian or a science lover. Maybe I don't want to be either, maybe I don't want someone else's package. Maybe I want to pack my own

 

False dichotomy.

 

 

Indeed, but it isn't one that I accept. I just get tired of that stupid if you are not with us you are against us rubbish. I had enough of that in church to last me five lifetimes.

 

 

 

[Legion]

Antlerman, why don't we start over? There seems to be some strange "spirit" among the people today and I feel affected. I wasn't feeling contentious when I first signed in and now I do. I don't know how much longer I will be here at ex-C. But if things went south with you then I'd be much quicker to leave.

 

Now, what are we talking about?

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, why don't we start over? There seems to be some strange "spirit" among the people today and I feel affected. I wasn't feeling contentious when I first signed in and now I do. I don't know how much longer I will be here at ex-C. But if things went south with you then I'd be much quicker to leave.

 

Now, what are we talking about?

Alright fine, truce. It's easy to do with you.

 

Give me a few minutes and I try to put pull together my thoughts about what I was trying to get at in a way that is more cohesive, perhaps...

[Legion]

Give me a few minutes and I try to put pull together my thoughts about what I was trying to get at in a way that is more cohesive, perhaps...

Cool.

[Galien]

Antlerman, why don't we start over? There seems to be some strange "spirit" among the people today and I feel affected. I wasn't feeling contentious when I first signed in and now I do. Now, what are we talking about?

 

He he just breathing makes me feel contentious. But PTSD due to previous mind control will do that

[mwc]

In a civilized society in the discourse of ideas those males who puff their chests and say they are right while closing down their minds are generally considered unattractive by those women who use their minds. If the woman herself is of little depth, then likely what attracts her to males are simple things, like their little symbolic ritualized matting displays through things like revving up the loud muffler on their shiny Camaro or big truck with large wheels. "Varroooom, varroooom... I'm more right than other men! Mate with me!! Varoooomm.... varoooommm..."

 

Often times 'being right' amounts to nothing more than this, a puffing of the chest and a revving of the motor. There is no true inquiry and discovery, but it's rather a matter of position. "I have the 'right' belief. I am right." Note the position of "I" How attractive...

Lots of qualifiers and derogatory type comments in that explanation. I'm going to say it's lacking.

 

There's nothing here that demonstrates where women, or anyone else, prefer the person that aims to be in the wrong. Especially someone who does this repeatedly (provided it doesn't kill them the first time). From an evolutionary point of view the one who is right the most "wins" and would be desirable. No one should want the person who makes buildings that intentionally collapse. Fails the test time and again. Can't kill the prey because they intentionally throw the spear wild. Can't sow or reap the seed properly on purpose. No one looks for the intentional screwup as the prize.

 

Humans may be able to overcome this to some degree but even in the example you've provided the people who hang out in that sub-culture will prefer the male who is seen as doing things right in their context. Not the one who intentionally gets it all wrong. The guy on the shiny truck is getting the women and not the one who intentionally taped a peeling chrome bumper to a scooter and tried to compete by being proud of his massive fuckup.

 

 

What about maturity? Can you sort of be mature? Be partially mature? Be half mature? How do you determine this at all? What is the test? What is the test for maturity? Who determines this? What is the evolutionary purpose for maturity? How does it manifest itself?

So you're saying you don't know.

 

From an evolutionary point of view once a person reaches puberty they are mature. They are ready to mate. I'm sure you can find the basics on puberty on wikipedia if you're so inclined.

 

BTW, though I disagree with your interpretation of what the purpose of the Gnostic Gospels were, that discussion should be a separate topic in itself as it would be getting into specific details about that subject and end up derailing this thread. I brought them up solely as an example of where the mindset of having Authority got transmitted into our cultural psyche through the system of Orthodoxy, which is now transferred to other systems to take that role.

 

Suffice to say, your argument supporting that they were equally about having positions of authority as the orthodox, is comparable to those who say that those who are "intolerant of intolerance", are themselves being intolerant. It's a very weak argument that doesn't hold up.

 

I actually think I should resurrect and old topic of mine to add new thoughts in this area that relate to it. This old topic here: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/23961-the-conundrum-of-religion/page__view__findpost__p__376262

I imagine you would disagree since it forms part of your argument. But Paul did the same thing. He claimed to gain authority directly and not from other apostles or anyone else. Then he laid out the ground-rules as he wanted them to exist. The structure of his group as he wanted it to exist. He rails against the ideas and the methods. It's the same thing different day.

 

mwc

[Galien]

I imagine you would disagree since it forms part of your argument. But Paul did the same thing. He claimed to gain authority directly and not from other apostles or anyone else. Then he laid out the ground-rules as he wanted them to exist. The structure of his group as he wanted it to exist. He rails against the ideas and the methods. It's the same thing different day.

 

mwc

 

So whose ground rules have you pillaged? And I hate the guys with the shiny trucks, they are usually self important fuckwits without much character. Hence need for truck in the first place

[mwc]

So whose ground rules have you pillaged?

In relation to what? My "soul?"

 

And I hate the guys with the shiny trucks, they are usually self important fuckwits without much character. Hence need for truck in the first place

Does this sample size of one make them intentionally wrong? If it does wouldn't that mean you should strive after them? You seemed to argue that you disliked men that strove to always be right which would make this wrong type of man appealing. On the other hand if having this type of vehicle and this type of behavior is, in fact, the right thing then that is apparently why you dislike them?

 

But I see it being said that you see the above type as in the wrong and you dislike it. I'm thinking you would prefer a man that is "right" in your eyes. However you define "right." And I imagine you'd want one that is always right (or as frequently as possible).

 

mwc

[Galien]

So whose ground rules have you pillaged?

In relation to what? My "soul?"

 

And I hate the guys with the shiny trucks, they are usually self important fuckwits without much character. Hence need for truck in the first place

Does this sample size of one make them intentionally wrong? If it does wouldn't that mean you should strive after them? You seemed to argue that you disliked men that strove to always be right which would make this wrong type of man appealing. On the other hand if having this type of vehicle and this type of behavior is, in fact, the right thing then that is apparently why you dislike them?

 

But I see it being said that you see the above type as in the wrong and you dislike it. I'm thinking you would prefer a man that is "right" in your eyes. However you define "right." And I imagine you'd want one that is always right (or as frequently as possible).

 

mwc

Regarding the ground rules....everything really. I meet very few people who have the balls to set their own.

 

I have a strong dislike for sheeple. If the herd says have a shiny truck in order to be acceptable, I will watch and see which man ignores the herd, and their social norms and is comfortable not giving a flying fuck what the herd thinks in the first place. Being oneself is what impresses me, not taking on everything that the herd says makes one "credible". I still want to know who the hell says you can't believe in evolution and have a soul. You seem to believe that believing in a soul is in some way amusing. Or maybe it is just that some people just don't want a soul. I know I enjoy mine

[Vigile]

It is always the same thing, do I have to choose between the two packages, both neatly tied up with a bow? I can be a christian or a science lover. Maybe I don't want to be either, maybe I don't want someone else's package. Maybe I want to pack my own

 

False dichotomy.

 

 

Indeed, but it isn't one that I accept. I just get tired of that stupid if you are not with us you are against us rubbish. I had enough of that in church to last me five lifetimes.

 

I just don't understand why you frame the argument this way. It's like saying you can believe pixies cook your dinner in the microwave box or radiation waves we can't see cook your dinner and I'm not joining either camp because I'm tired of people forcing me to conform. One merely represents an unchangeable, clearly-proven, reality while the other does indeed require conformity and faith. That's why I said it's a false dichotomy.

[mwc]

I have a strong dislike for sheeple. If the herd says have a shiny truck in order to be acceptable, I will watch and see which man ignores the herd, and their social norms and is comfortable not giving a flying fuck what the herd thinks in the first place. Being oneself is what impresses me, not taking on everything that the herd says makes one "credible".

Okay. I'll take a quick note of this.

 

I still want to know who the hell says you can't believe in evolution and have a soul. You seem to believe that believing in a soul is in some way amusing. Or maybe it is just that some people just don't want a soul. I know I enjoy mine

So you're saying that I should simply say there is a soul because you say...others say...there is a soul? That I should follow the herd? Just to be acceptable?

 

As for the soul itself. It has yet to be properly defined in this discussion.

 

If we're talking about a thing that somehow is the "essence" of all of us but may predate and/or outlast the physical body then, yes, I'm afraid I not only find this amusing but downright idiotic.

 

If we're just talking about some "poetic" type of "soul" that is essentially some set of mental/emotional responses then I fully concede a "soul." It's nothing more than the brain doing what the brain does. Chemicals ebbing and flowing. Little waves of electrical impulses shooting through the nerves. All those wonderful things. A rose by any other name as it were. Like any other aspect of ourselves if we "exercise" it then we can "tune" it to different degrees. I would think that since brains are not all alike different people would achieve different results in this practice. Just like people are spread across the autistic spectrum can achieve different results in various disciplines especially compared to someone who is considered neuro-typical. Being able to tap into one's emotions, or "soul," is not some grand accomplishment that all should strive to achieve anymore than everyone should be wanting to count all the toothpicks that fall to the floor like the character in Rain Man. It's interesting but the person in that case was lacking in other areas and perhaps those who are so finely in-tune with their "soul" may well need to consider that, like the Rain Man, they are missing aspects from other areas of life. Rain Man was unable to properly represent his emotions perhaps those who are able to tap into their "soul" are unable to achieve his level of cognitive processing? One is not necessarily better than the other. Both must have been needed to have evolved. The "soul" is simply a poor definition for some function(s) of the brain.

 

mwc

[Galien]

I have a strong dislike for sheeple. If the herd says have a shiny truck in order to be acceptable, I will watch and see which man ignores the herd, and their social norms and is comfortable not giving a flying fuck what the herd thinks in the first place. Being oneself is what impresses me, not taking on everything that the herd says makes one "credible".

Okay. I'll take a quick note of this.

 

I still want to know who the hell says you can't believe in evolution and have a soul. You seem to believe that believing in a soul is in some way amusing. Or maybe it is just that some people just don't want a soul. I know I enjoy mine

So you're saying that I should simply say there is a soul because you say...others say...there is a soul? That I should follow the herd? Just to be acceptable?

 

As for the soul itself. It has yet to be properly defined in this discussion.

 

If we're talking about a thing that somehow is the "essence" of all of us but may predate and/or outlast the physical body then, yes, I'm afraid I not only find this amusing but downright idiotic.

 

If we're just talking about some "poetic" type of "soul" that is essentially some set of mental/emotional responses then I fully concede a "soul." It's nothing more than the brain doing what the brain does. Chemicals ebbing and flowing. Little waves of electrical impulses shooting through the nerves. All those wonderful things. A rose by any other name as it were. Like any other aspect of ourselves if we "exercise" it then we can "tune" it to different degrees. I would think that since brains are not all alike different people would achieve different results in this practice. Just like people are spread across the autistic spectrum can achieve different results in various disciplines especially compared to someone who is considered neuro-typical. Being able to tap into one's emotions, or "soul," is not some grand accomplishment that all should strive to achieve anymore than everyone should be wanting to count all the toothpicks that fall to the floor like the character in Rain Man. It's interesting but the person in that case was lacking in other areas and perhaps those who are so finely in-tune with their "soul" may well need to consider that, like the Rain Man, they are missing aspects from other areas of life. Rain Man was unable to properly represent his emotions perhaps those who are able to tap into their "soul" are unable to achieve his level of cognitive processing? One is not necessarily better than the other. Both must have been needed to have evolved. The "soul" is simply a poor definition for some function(s) of the brain.

 

mwc

 

Or perhaps those so finely in tune with their higher cognitive processes are missing other aspects of life, like their ability to tap into their soul. Certainly hasn't affected the arrogance though, that seems to be in perfect working order. You think I haven't heart this stuff fifty times? I can only assume there are parts of you not evolved enough to even begin to understand what I am saying.

[mwc]

Or perhaps those so finely in tune with their higher cognitive processes are missing other aspects of life, like their ability to tap into their soul. Certainly hasn't affected the arrogance though, that seems to be in perfect working order. You think I haven't heart this stuff fifty times? I can only assume there are parts of you not evolved enough to even begin to understand what I am saying.

It seems I've touched a nerve. Was it unfair of me to answer your questions honestly?

 

Are you capable of defining and demonstrating this "soul" you speak of? So far it just remains a word, along with "spirit," that is tossed about as if it means something and we'll all pick-up on it and nod in agreement if this is done enough. "Ahh, yes, the 'soul.' Why didn't I, we, see it before? I think it was the italics that did it. But of course. Let's all laugh in unison now. <ha ha ha> That was pleasant."

 

mwc

[Antlerman]

In a civilized society in the discourse of ideas those males who puff their chests and say they are right while closing down their minds are generally considered unattractive by those women who use their minds. If the woman herself is of little depth, then likely what attracts her to males are simple things, like their little symbolic ritualized matting displays through things like revving up the loud muffler on their shiny Camaro or big truck with large wheels. "Varroooom, varroooom... I'm more right than other men! Mate with me!! Varoooomm.... varoooommm..."

 

Often times 'being right' amounts to nothing more than this, a puffing of the chest and a revving of the motor. There is no true inquiry and discovery, but it's rather a matter of position. "I have the 'right' belief. I am right." Note the position of "I" How attractive...

Lots of qualifiers and derogatory type comments in that explanation. I'm going to say it's lacking.

 

There's nothing here that demonstrates where women, or anyone else, prefer the person that aims to be in the wrong.

This is derailing the topic somewhat, but the failure I see on your part is in how you create this false analogy that what we're talking about is "being right". No one aims to be wrong (unless its part of an overall strategy towards success). People seek to succeed, not "be right", which has the implications of superiority over others who are wrong, or otherwise to find their strength and identity through having correct beliefs. In all of your argument there is no middle ground of understanding that comes through which recognizes those who seek to be open and flexible in opinion towards a greater end than "being right". In your mind, everyone is seeking to be right positionally. I very much disagree with this.

 

In fact, it is this very thing that I say is nothing more than just a shift of a flawed mindset inherited from a system based on Dogma. This is where I see so many people simply transfer this Western religious mindset of Authority and Truth in absolutes from one set of thought to the other, "Religion is a lie! Secularism is true!" (or vise versa, it doesn't matter). I hear it injected into your interpretation of the Gnostics, projecting this mantra of dogma in your analysis of others. It's how you appear to be seeing the world in these terms and reading into the motives and actions of all others.

 

I think what Galien is saying, and I'm saying, is that it's not about 'being right', but about growth and progress and further understanding. I will happily embrace "being wrong", if it is a means to an end of growth and success. That is not at all the same as "being right". And my point about orthodoxy is that it becomes being about that. What you believe makes "you" right. And that I say is an error. We are not talking about making wise choices in judgment, we are talking about conceptual beliefs that are either held dogmatically, or fluidly. You're whole right/wrong equation is an expression of binary thought. Binary thinking is the heart of dogmatic thought.

 

 

What about maturity? Can you sort of be mature? Be partially mature? Be half mature? How do you determine this at all? What is the test? What is the test for maturity? Who determines this? What is the evolutionary purpose for maturity? How does it manifest itself?

So you're saying you don't know.

 

From an evolutionary point of view once a person reaches puberty they are mature. They are ready to mate. I'm sure you can find the basics on puberty on wikipedia if you're so inclined.

And we are just biological animals? You know that my response was rhetorical, turning back on you everything you said in exactly how you said it substituting the word mature for soul. The point was to illuminate perhaps a little understanding of the non-concrete nature of our language and perceptions of reality, and that how you yourself use it. I know you're quite intelligent, so I'll just assume you didn't want to acknowledge that point in your response. I thought your question to her was lacking, and this illustrated why.

 

BTW, though I disagree with your interpretation of what the purpose of the Gnostic Gospels were, that discussion should be a separate topic in itself as it would be getting into specific details about that subject and end up derailing this thread. I brought them up solely as an example of where the mindset of having Authority got transmitted into our cultural psyche through the system of Orthodoxy, which is now transferred to other systems to take that role.

 

Suffice to say, your argument supporting that they were equally about having positions of authority as the orthodox, is comparable to those who say that those who are "intolerant of intolerance", are themselves being intolerant. It's a very weak argument that doesn't hold up.

 

I actually think I should resurrect and old topic of mine to add new thoughts in this area that relate to it. This old topic here: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/23961-the-conundrum-of-religion/page__view__findpost__p__376262

I imagine you would disagree since it forms part of your argument. But Paul did the same thing. He claimed to gain authority directly and not from other apostles or anyone else.

Which is why the Gnostics embraced Paul... And it is not the same thing as the Orthodox, but the opposite. No man is the holder or giver of Divine Truth, only God is. That is not the Orthodox structure of Apostolic Succession. Once someone has reached enlightenment, or gnosis, they no longer need any man to guide them or tell them truth from error. It is now within them alone. This is quite different from the Orthodox position. And yes, the Orthodox claimed Paul as well, etc. I'm not going to argue where Paul best fits, but this one example illustrates the different approach. It is not just the flip side of the same coin of Dogma, as you appear to assume.

 

 

Now, I'll get to my response to Legion later as time permits, as that is more directly related to the thread topic here.