I cannot believe that 'when the soul enters the body' is actually part of the abortion debate

[Hugh_Lebowski]

in any remotely serious way.

Specifically I've seen people being interviewed on news shows talking about this idea, and then the host credulously going along with it, like it's an actual 'thing'.

Souls are supernatural/magical beings, and therefore ... they're not real. There's no such thing. They're a made-up idea, to comfort people who are scared of death (because 'your soul' is the church-advertised vessel of one's immortality).

And even if you do entertain this (imho, absurd) concept based on your 'faith', it's still the case that it's based on 'religion', and different ideas about when that process (lol) 'happens' abound across different major religions.

So at the very least, if we're just abandoning separation of church and state, and placing everyone's 'faith' (and belief in magical beings) at the top of the proverbial food chain, shouldn't there be 'religious exemptions' that allow abortion for people of faiths who do NOT condemn abortions before a certain point?

[niyad]

1. NO NO NO!! You are completely missing the point. There is only ONE "True

Faith", (the white nationalist, christofascist one). All else is heresy, and must be punished by death.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

8. There is that, I'm with you ...

But I think this argument could have some legal merit (based on the situation the christo-fascists have created in this country ATM, elevating 'religious rights' to an absurd level).

Still, the First Amendment is the First Amendment.

I want to see a non-Christian (but religious person) who's denied an abortion (only because they may now be, not that I *want* them to be denied, to be clear) take this to Court.

At minimum, it will be interesting to watch the Judge (or perhaps one day, the Dirty Half-Dozen) squirm and tie themselves in knots trying to justify WHY you can't have an abortion even though YOUR faith says you can.

I think a clever lawyer could make the case that the abortion ban in that state is based on specifically religious grounds, i.e. various branches of Christianity and therefore DENIES religious freedom to other groups.

[Nevilledog]

15. Several faiths are already challenging this in FL

[wiggs]

79. I imagine there will be many challenges from individuals who believe they

are being denied a medical procedure not based on any scientific, factual, or real reason....other than other people take exception to it.

scotus may have undermined Roe but that does not necessarily mean states can pass laws based on magic, religion, superstition, dis-comfort. This isn't settled.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

191. God, I hope so (nt)

[Hekate]

84. When one of our Supremes quotes an old witch-burner as a for-the-ages jurist, & 5 others sign on...

… we have entered uncharted waters in this country.

[mrsadm]

108. Wasn't that only Alito's draft opinion?

I'll have to research this

[Hekate]

122. Let me know what you find out. I thought it made it to the final as well

[pnwmom]

204. No, also in the final. That was the first thing I checked. nt

[TheBlackAdder]

96. Written by the same people who thought that dust blows up into a woman to impregnate them.

.

Back then, they had no idea how a woman became pregnant.

.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

124. They knew it was from ejaculation, they weren't THAT dumb (around the time of Jesus I mean)

However, they viewed 'semen' as the 'seed of life', and the female as a incubator, similar to what happens when planting a seed in the soil.

The big thing they DIDN'T realize ... was the female's contribution to the process in the form of her ovum.

Nor did they realize the seed they planted in the ground was essentially a fertilized 'egg' produced by the female plant, to which the male of the species contributed only 1/2 of the genetic material therein.

And 2000+ years later, adherents still cling to the notion that females are mainly just incubators

[Solomon]

243. If sperm is the "seed of life", isn't male masturbation akin to abortion?

[Hugh_Lebowski]

245. That WAS the religious position for many years, yup

Males have since been handily relieved of this moral burden with the discovery of the ovum.

[samnsara]

2. im so glad im atheist!

[brush]

51. It is all quite ridiculous. Where in the human anatomy is the soul located?

Is it next to the heart, tucked beneath the left lung, or nestled next to the liver?

I never see it on the vivid color, anatomical illustrations in my doctor's office.

How do I keep missing it?

[LiberalFighter]

57. What happens when a person receives a transplant?

Dead vs Living person?

[brush]

65. I know, right. Is it part of the medical delivery that's...

helicoptered in in rush transplants? Are handling instructions included?

[Xavier Breath]

167. Finally, we discover the reason for the appendix!

This is going to make appendectomies problematic.

[brush]

169. Oh, you might be on to something...but then again...not.

But you know that.

[Bayard]

3. Non-believer?

We don't care. You WILL be assimilated.

[Nevilledog]

18. ...

[lindysalsagal]

25. +1000

[pandr32]

49. Perfect!

[sanatanadharma]

73. The deepest desire of the Christian warriors is to be seated ...

... in the Colosseum box seats while their enemies are fed to the lions.

[Diamond_Dog]

4. Welcome to the Republican Theocracy, Hugh

Otherwise known as “I get to force my religion on you because I CAN.”

And doesn’t most of this humiliation and degradation seem to fall on women ….

I am happy that you and the guys on DU see past this nonsense ….. I hope more men are being made aware by their female family members and significant others.

Really … my belief is ….

[Hugh_Lebowski]

52. You know I feel you sister!

OG

[cate94]

60. +1000 n/t

[Irish_Dem]

5. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

We are back to medieval endless theological discussion of the absurd.

[Kentuckykel]

6. When soul enters

Hugh, we ARE souls having a physical experience! I would suggest you read up on this subject because you are very uninformed on it. The internet can help. Our soul is our most precious commodity, it is everything. Why do you think not killing is in the Bible, in our laws. There are a couple theories on when the soul enters the body; upon conception or just sometime prior to birth. If it's the latter, no problem with abortion but if it is at conception a life is being ended and since we don't know, if a woman has an abortion, it is between her and God.

[niyad]

9. Welcome to our DU family.

[MineralMan]

12. That is your belief, but not a fact.

There is no evidence whatever for what you are calling a "soul." You can believe that the soul exists, but you must take that on faith, since no evidence exists for that belief.

[Kentuckykel]

125. Proof of the soul

There is proof. Read Greyson, Ring, Moody, Kubler-Ross, Cayce. People aren't making this up.

[MineralMan]

129. So, I'm supposed to look it up for myself?

No, thanks. Did that 60 years ago. No evidence. Period.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

130. No, there is not, and yes they are ...

They may 'prove it' in a way that convinces YOU, but I guarantee you none of what they're saying proves the existence of the soul (as described by major religions) in a way that would pass even a remotely serious peer-review process.

And that's because ... 'souls' don't exist, outside defining it as your living consciousness/values/morals, which I suppose is valid but not how religions define it (at least not the whole scope of it, for sure).

And LIVING is the key word here.

You're actually NOT an immortal, magical being presently inhabiting a random corporeal fleshy body as a brief stop in your eternal journey throughout space and time.

I'm sorry to break it to you and I hope you're okay.

[relayerbob]

192. Of course, you realize that your opinion is just as faith-based as the other side

There is no evidence either way, since people don't return from the dead.

Capitalization of YOUR points doesn't actually mean anything more than YOUR attempt to shove YOUR opinion down someone else's throat. Feel free to believe whatever you want. But sarcastically attacking someone for their beliefs is just as bad as the people you are claiming to hate. Period.

The only time I know someone is wrong is when they say, "My way is the only way, and your way is wrong." Holds true for every religion, including atheism.

Here's reality, and if everyone did this, the world would be a much happier place - let everyone believe what they want to believe and don't force one's own opinions on anyone else, in any way. Ever. I personally couldn't care less what you believe, but don't tell me, or anyone else, what we are, or are not. You have ZERO idea.

And, btw, my own belief system is far more complex than some Christian, Muslim, Hindu, whatever, etc. cult's, but I don't force it on anyone. Ever. I only will discuss it if asked, or if some holier-than-thou person tries to force themselves on me.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

195. You know I love ya Bob (or at least I hope so)

But the problem in play is not just casual conversations between people where we try to convince one another that our point of view on these matters is 'right'.

I'm talking about LAWS being made here, based on specific denominations religious beliefs ... in a country where that's not meant to happen.

And I never said I hate anybody ... though I look askance at those who push their beliefs to the point where they want The Law (for everyone) to reflect those beliefs.

Lastly, no ... my beliefs are NOT faith-based. Atheism (of which I'm a proud member) is the opposite of religion. My 'beliefs' are based upon OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE, not the musings of Bronze-Age nomads with basically zero scientific knowledge. It's not the same thing, I'm sorry but it's not.

You might as well be telling me that my denial of the existence of Apollo, Zeus, Ra, Leprechauns, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the God That Makes The Rain Come and the Plants Grow ... is equally 'faith-based' as the people who believe in those (now generally understood to be fictitious characters).

The 'Imagined God That's Popular Now' is no different in my eyes. People believed in Ra for just as long as they've currently believed in the Christian/Muslim God/Allah in the period since. And there's been THOUSANDS of religions and Gods across history.

Look, brother. There's no supernatural shit going on in the Universe. Period. I've said so since I was 12, and I will always say so.

[relayerbob]

214. I obviously agree 100% with your points onlaws

But, there is no observable evidence of what happens after death, and our knowledge of the Universe is infinitesmally small. All we know is about the size of a grain of sand, on a beach the size of our entire planet.

So, you can choose to believe whatever you want, I don't really care. But you are still trying to force me into your way of thinking, which is no different than some hypoChristian trying to force me into their way of thinking. As far as I'm concerned, both are equally wrong and inappropriate. People should keep their views on religion to themselves.

Your lack of having observed supernatural things, doesn't mean they don't happen and that others can and have had such experiences. Your militant, atheism is absolutely based on your faith that you can see everything there is to see. You can't. Capital letters notwithstanding. Want to be actually anti-religious? Try agnosticism, meaning you don't know what you don't know, at least that isn't intellectually dishonest.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

220. I'm not trying to force my 'beliefs' onto you Sir Bob ...

I'm simply making my argument for why I've reached the conclusions I've made. Not dictating that 'you must believe like I do', my friend.

Here's a thought exercise to illustrate the point I'm really trying to make.

Let's say, 2,000 years ago, some Germanic nomads wrote a book describing how there was an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal unicorn that lives in the Black Forest that created the earth, and the universe, and life itself ... AND is controlling everything that happens in the universe. Also, every one of us has a magic unicorn living inside of us that was created by the Unicorn God and lives forever!

And when you die, your magic unicorn gets to go live with the Unicorn God in Paradise. If you were nice, of course. If you were mean however, you spend eternity in a cave where a very hostile leprechaun tortures you while he keeps his pot of gold 3 inches away from your grasp. And there are no rainbows there.

And lets say a Church of the Unicorn grew up around it, and it now has millions of adherents who purport to live their lives according to the tenets of the 2,000 year old Holy Book Of The Unicorn.

And let's say that millions of people (including Mr. Lebowski) over that 2000 years have gone to look for the unicorn in the Black Forest. 1000's have claimed they've seen it, and it performed magical acts for them. But not one of them has any actual verifiable proof. No photos, no imprints of tracks, no scat, no unicorn wine that was created from water, etc. Not even other witnesses, it's always ONE person who was there.

When adherents are asked why these millions of excursions have produced no evidence, they say that well ... the Unicorn God is invisible in photos, creates no tracks because it has no weight, doesn't shit, will only ever appear before one person, and magically-created wine is indistinguishable for ordinary wine!

So ... Mr. Lebowski comes along and says "you know what ... looking at the totality of evidence, I'm very convinced that the Unicorn God story is bullshit, and you've all been duped".

Would relayerbob be all ... "You need to keep your mouth shut, cause these people believe in the Unicorn God, and you have no cause to doubt their faith. Just because YOU'VE never seen the Unicorn God, that means nothing! Other people say they've seen it in the forest, so you must NOT disrespect them by casting doubt on their story, cause maybe it was really true?'

Because that would be highly analogous to what you just did in this discussion.

MHO.

[relayerbob]

221. Your constant attempt

To insult anyone who disagrees with you, and then mansplain your obvious and very base logic, suggests you are indeed trying to force people to follow your train of thought and your faith that you know all. I could not possibly care any less about whether people believe in a unicorn god or not, as long as they don’t expect me too, also, and don’t try to create laws based on it. Personally, I reject almost all religion on earth, because it is far too limited in scope and possibilities.

Which misses my point that your atheism is not based on anything beyond your faith that you know everything in the universe. It, too, is based in severely limited scope and datasets in the universe as a whole.

All I know for 100%, is that anyone who claims absolute knowledge or that their way is the only way, is wrong. Including atheists. As a physicist and a scientist with numerous patents in the tech we are currently using to communicate, and others, I understand the uncertainty principle … and that includes the possibility that there are things in the universe we do not understand. In fact, the probability is that we know very little about the Universe. He’ll, we don’t even know much about the oceans of our planet, and we actually have tools that can measure them. We have no such tools, at all, for studying what comes after life or what other forms of life and sentience may exist anywhere else.

And, please, for god’s sake (pun intended), stop referring to yourself in the third person. But you are very clear in your lack of respect for anyone who disagrees with you, and that makes almost as good a Christian as many of those that you disrespect.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

226. Dude, you entirely miss the point, once again ...

Let me distill your argument here:

Literally every single thought/concept/hare-brained idea that crops into anybody's mind about the existence of supernatural beings with magical powers is TOTALLY POSSIBLE, cause after all, no single person knows all there is to know in the Universe! Maybe Thor and Thanos exist too, who KNOWS?

My argument is:

I conclude that supernatural beings don't exist, because there's NO SHRED of actual proof that they do, and their existence would, by nature, appear to violate everything we DO understand about the Universe.

You're making this very personal, whereas I'm simply trying to explain my logic to you.

And I'm done doing so. Love you man

[relayerbob]

231. I love it when people say "they are done"

Because it usually means they have no actual argument, other than to restate their opinions, endlessly. Your anger over it, only reinforces the impression.

But thanks for your (incorrect) explanation of my points. And, you are the one making it personal by insulting everything and everyone, including me, who doesn't agree with your narrow view on reality.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

240. You're hilarious. And I'm done (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

248. The uncertainty principle is not something ...

... "that includes the possibility that there are things in the universe we do not understand". It relates knowledge of specific values to the Planck constant. As a physicist, you knew that, but have for some reason decided to misrepresent the principle to try and shore up your argument with an appeal to authority. You implied Hugh is "intellectually dishonest" a few posts ago. For shame.

[Mariana]

239. Posting opinions on the internet you don't agree with does not constitute "force".

Do you really think that's equivalent to religious lawmakers furiously writing legislation to oppress women, LGBTQ people, and non-Christians? Because that is force.

[mvd]

207. I agree with you

It does take faith because there is no absolute proof yet. But science a long time ago didn’t know a lot of the things we now know exist.

That said, it absolutely can’t be a basis for our laws. The Repukes dangerously want a theocracy.

[relayerbob]

215. Absolutely agree.

Religion and state must be separate.

I can say, with reasonable certainly, my views would get me burned at the stake in almost any such society, regardless of the name of said religion. hahaha

[phylny]

218. I am Christian and do believe that we have a soul (I think animals do, too, especially our

domesticated ones) but I realize there's no way to prove or disprove it, AND no law should be predicated upon the existence of a soul.

Goodness, we are screwed by this movement.

[Sky Jewels]

230. I'm curious how far down the ladder you think "souls" go.

Birds? Lizards? Worms? Bacteria? ... Also, at what point in human evolution did souls inhabit humans? Was it when they became multi-cellular, or when they became amphibians, or when they became tiny primates that lived in trees, or when they began to take on a more ape-like form, or only when they became homo sapiens?

[relayerbob]

242. For me, personally, life-energy exists in everything

Still doesn't mean I want government telling anyone what to think or do wrt one particular cult.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

250. This is great, we may've reached a consensus around your life-energy theory

I personally call it 'solar energy', because plants use solar power to construct themselves through photosynthesis, and then I eat them.

Or animals eat the plants, and I eat the animals.

Also, the plants create oxygen, which my body needs to be able to 'burn' the aforementioned fuel sources, turn it into ATP via the Krebs cycle and such.

And that's why I continue to exist along with the (roughly properly) continued function of various other bodily systems.

Is that what you meant by life-energy?

[relayerbob]

251. It's a subset of it, yes

But I go farther in that I consider the entire Universe to be one (or likely more than one) living entity. And there are energies and objects we don't understand, such as "dark energy" and "dark matter", as well as very likely numerous "universes" that we can't perceive because their physical constants don't allow our current primitive instruments to detect them. And there are parts of us, our sentience, which also exist well beyond our current range of understanding.

[phylny]

253. Are you really curious? Why?

[Sky Jewels]

254. Because I'm trying to understand why some people think

humans have souls, but other living beings may or may not, depending on their "advanced" status on this one planet among trillions of planets (millions of which undoubtedly have life forms, including highly advanced life forms) at one blip of time in a 14-billion-year-old universe. Humans are just one relatively recently evolved species of animals on Earth. Did dinosaurs have souls? That makes just as much sense as humans having them, and they were the dominant species and around for exponentially longer than humans have been around. (And the "Ruling Reptiles" ancestors' live on today, in the forms of things like crocodiles and birds.) It seems like a lot of people just accept the notion "humans have souls" without really thinking through the implications, so I was wondering if the poster had thought about it, and, if so, what were the conclusions/parameters of what types of life have souls and what types do not, and how far into evolution does a life form qualify to receive a soul. Does it depend on brain size/intelligence? I personally don't think souls are "real," but the notion would make more sense to me if there was consistency with the belief, like, every single life form in the universe [which I guess would be some version of a one-celled creature on up (?) ] has a soul, or none do. It's something I don't hear people talk about, because I don't really know many religious people. It does sincerely interest me, though.

[uponit7771]

200. +1,

[Handler]

255. Yes they are

[Gaugamela]

13. Why don't you provide a link to a source that can prove your assertion?

[MineralMan]

14. Because no such link exists, nor does any evidence supporting the existence of a soul.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

166. Take a look at

Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls, both by Michael Newton.

[Nevilledog]

20. Why don't you have your God give me a call, since he's real and all?

You're entitled to YOUR beliefs. You're not entitled to MINE.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

21. No, they are not real, there's no such thing as magical/supernatural beings

They don't exist. They're a construct of human imagination. That includes God(s), Devils, Angels, Demons, Souls, Heaven, Hell, etc ... none are real.

Why? Because their existence would VIOLATE THE BASIC LAWS OF PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY ... and that, simply put, does not happen.

I am extremely informed. There's is absolutely no evidence for ANY of the above magical creatures, nor 'souls entering the body', nor 'leaving the body and living on after the body is dead'.

Ergo, the only logical conclusion is ... it's made up.

Perhaps you might inform yourself as to the nature of what we call 'reality'.

There's 10's of millions of scientific studies on the the subject of 'what is real and what is not' (since that's essentially what ALL science is about) you can read.

Start with one's concerning the Laws of Thermodynamics, perhaps?

Some studies on Critical Thinking may also assist in your enlightenment.

[Calculating]

48. The basic laws of chemistry and thermodynamics are already violated by the big bang

How did everything come from nothing, with the exact right cosmic laws of physics to enable complexity in our universe? Read up on the fine tuning problem. Aside from that, if everything can come from nothing it implies that things such as souls or gods should be possible.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

83. My theory on this ... it's because there was never 'nothing'?

And there was never (entirely) 'not a universe'?

I believe that the collective MATTER in the universe (and the energy) ... has always existed. Because it MUST have. Big Bang (and all that's after) involved just a matter of changed positions and energy.

Because our lives are so influenced by the effects of 'time' we have a hard time wrapping our brains around the concept of something having 'always existed'. Esp. because we've been told our whole lives there was a 'Big Bang' and then everything 'came into being'.

Our human concept of time (centered as it is around the revolutions and the rotations of the space ball we live on, and our finite lifespans) basically doesn't exist in the universe as a whole.

'Time' ... is really nothing but a measurement ... of 'change'. Changes in position, degrees of entropy, etc.

So while the Big Bang is an important demarcation point in the eternal history of the Universe ... it was all 'already there', because it's always been, because it HAS TO have always been, per the laws of thermodynamics.

We simply cannot detect ... how it was before that demarcation point.

[TiberiusB]

90. That's not a correct summation of the Big Bang

Most scientists don't even use that term. Our information for what preceded the initial primordial singularity is, by its very nature, limited to theory. That does not mean that everything came from nothing. There is no theory positing that. It simply means that we don't know what proceeded those events. Also, physics is not a one size fits all field. Quantum physics is difficult to reconcile with Newtonian, hence the search for a unified theory that can bridge the gaps in our understanding. That means constantly testing and retesting ideas until the pieces start to fit, or at least fit better.
The fine tuning problem doesn't establish anything other than there is always work to be done to advance our understanding of the cosmos. It doesn't open the door to metaphysical explanations at all. Souls or gods would require a massive leap in complexity that simply does not spontaneously occur. The formation of the universe, the evolution of life on Earth, every iteration of any D & D rule book I've ever tried to read, they all show a movement from simple to complex.
It's like Intelligent Design Theory. The idea that the complexity of life and the universe suggests an intelligent hand guiding the process conveniently ignores not only billions of years of history, but utterly sidesteps the obvious question, "wouldn't a creator of such complexity also be too complex to be a random occurrence, and therefore suggest a creator for the creator?"
More succinctly, if God created everything, what created God?
Also, how can souls be a factor in any debate about abortion? Isn't bringing souls into the discussion suggesting a type of immortality? Won't they just take up residence in another zygote somewhere?

[slightlv]

133. I've read where the eternal universe theory

is beginning to gain more traction in scientific theory than the multiverse theory (tho, personally, I -like- the birthing of multiverses theory). Either one is beyond my pay grade, and I readily admit it! If you can wrap your mind around all of it, my hats off to you, TiberiusB!

[Hugh_Lebowski]

138. Great post!!! (nt)

[Docreed2003]

196. Sigh...sorry you're having to respond to this crap in your thread my friend

Look at it this way...if their nonsense is correct, we're going to have a hellluva time in Hades. I'll save you a seat!

[Hugh_Lebowski]

197. Nobody I'd rather party with in the afterlife than you brotha ... if there is one ;)

Also, I started up shit, so ... it's my solemn duty to respond

[Docreed2003]

199. Oh you had it handled for sure...I just had to eyeroll at some of the responses

And hell yeah, we'd have a helluva party in the afterlife!

[Girard442]

27. I don't believe in souls -- but I DO believe in trolls.

[JanLip]

33. My belief....

For what it’s worth. And this may cause a shite storm. My belief is the soul is your conscience or vice-versus. I also believe soul enters body when first breath is taken. Now y’all can call me crazy LOL

[JanLip]

37. And I'm not a troll.

😁

[MineralMan]

45. You're welcome to believe whatever you are able to believe.

You are not welcome, nor is anyone else, to insist that others believe as you do or must do what your beliefs lead you to think is right.

That's how it works. For the record, I do not share your beliefs, and do not think (rather than believe) that anything such as a soul exists. Who each of us is is a product of evolutionary genetics and what we learn from infancy. There is ample evidence for that being true, unlike for the belief that souls are something real, for which there is no evidence at all.

[JanLip]

94. Huh.

Exactly where in my post did I say I would force you or anyone else to believe what I believe. Same could be said that you are forcing your belief on me. I have my own set of beliefs as you do also. I honestly don’t care what you believe. You don’t have to be so crude. I’ve read your posts and appreciate them. Learned a few things. I do have an open mind.

[phylny]

219. This right here

100%.

[Voltaire2]

67. Did you mean consciousness rather than conscience?

Also is this soul a physical substance? (Matter or energy) If it isn’t what is it, and if it is non material how exactly can it interact with matter?

[sanatanadharma]

82. Further, what is "consciousness'?

And where is it located?
Can consciousness be scientifically affirmed or negated?
As consciousness is not objectifiable by our five senses, is it known by inference, deduction, induction, similarity (to what). metaphor (from what)?

Seems to me that consciousness violates all laws of matter, energy, and science and thus is a non-existent fiction.

[Voltaire2]

88. That is a whole other and much more interesting discussion.

You and Daniel Dennett are in agreement. I’m on the fence, clinging to the ‘emergent property’ life raft.

[JanLip]

128. What I meant.

And I prolly posted the wrong wording. I think most people know what is right or wrong. Although some people don’t. I’m not telling anyone what to believe just trying to explain my beliefs. Hard to do sometimes. We are faced with choices nearly every day. I don’t know what they would choose but my conscious helps guide me. Hopefully I make the right chose. I don’t mean to offend anyone just want to be able to post my opinions. I so enjoy reading everyone’s thoughts and opinions.

[Voltaire2]

144. So I think you meant conscience as in a moral function

in the brain. Why do we need a supernatural entity for that?

[JanLip]

159. Again this is my belief

To me morality and spirituality are the same. Again my belief. I am a democrat also believe in Christianity. Am offended when I hear Republicans say if you’re a Christian you can’t be a democrat. I am also pro-choice. I believe we should take care of people less fortunate. Pretty much what a democrat stands for. I don’t see anything that would cause me to be a republican. I certainly don’t vote for them.

[Voltaire2]

161. I understand it is your belief.

I just don’t understand why we need a supernatural agent to understand good and bad. It seems simpler to explain morality as a brain function alone. Adding some external agent doesn’t add any value to the explanation, it isn’t more explanatory, it’s just more complicated.

[JanLip]

164. Brain function

I believe it’s more than a brain function. Mind body and soul. I know you don’t understand my explanation but I’m an old lady who has seen a lot in my life and my faith is what got me through it.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

212. Religion/Faith has a lot of utility in a lot of people's lives

And I'm absolutely not hostile to individuals being religious, because I see this utility.

Faith and one's church community helping to get one thru hard times/fear/loss is a prime example.

It's also a guidebook of sorts to help parents teach their children what are a set of values I find (mostly) agreeable ... if you're doing it right at least. Kids don't come with a manual, and throughout the centuries, religious texts and teaching have in many ways provided them for parents. I see some value there.

Churches provide a space for the community to gather and socialize and create bonds.

It at least somewhat assuages the fear of death that we all live with.

I could list more positives, or a WHOLE bunch of things about the concept that I think are shite, but I'll spare ya.

Other than to say what I've already said, bottom-line, none of that soul/eternal afterlife stuff, the piece that really provides the 'hook' to get people in the door (damn near every religion has an 'eternal life' story of some sort) ... is true. It's the church's version of marketing, basically. Because humans in general fear death, we'd all want to live eternally, see our dead loved ones again someday, etc.

Religion basically provides a mechanism that allows us to THINK ... that none of us ever REALLY die. Powerful stuff, given that 'survival' is pretty damn instinctual

I get the allure, but I draw the line at making actual LAWS based on SOME people's ideas about supernatural fairy-tale creatures like Souls and Gods. Just really rubs me the wrong way, hence this thread.

Welcome to DU btw

[JanLip]

217. Against organized religion

Thing is I don’t go to church any more. The churches are not the same as they were long ago. I don’t recognize them. I get where you’re coming from and I respect your position. It’s really hard to explain what I believe but for me it’s something I cherish. It’s not a fairy tale as some have said. Thank you for your comments 😁

[mwb970]

46. And where would one "read up on" the existence of these undetectable "souls"?

[brush]

61. How exactly does that work? Is there an off/on indicator...

like when you check to see if your computer or phone is charging?

Is it a red of green light? And what does it signify if the light is red or green or flashing red?

[Voltaire2]

62. Where in the body is the soul located and how

does it get into a body?

[LiberalFighter]

70. And I'm wondering what happens when a person receives a transplant

from a living or dead person? Especially if it is the heart. Does the soul leave the heart when the heart is removed from the body of the living or dead? Or does it move into the new body? What if the heart came from a criminal or heathen?

[Voltaire2]

85. Descartes tried to get around the problems

of dualism by claiming that the pineal gland was the interface between the material and non-material realms. That was patent nonsense 400 years ago as it just avoided the question of how by answering instead where. Also Descartes knowledge of the pineal gland was grossly incorrect even at the time.

[They_Live]

92. Right, don't put Descartes

before Dehorse.

[bluecollar2]

123. Brilliant!!! N/T

[Solomon]

249. Ha ha!

[luvtheGWN]

66. Your personal beliefs should be respected.

Just as others' beliefs which are contrary to yours.

God is a construct of man and not the other way around. Why do you think Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel painting shows God (his version) as an old white man?

The soul is a construct of Christianity. Man needed something to try to explain why he (meaning each of us) is unique. Also, why people are afraid of death and hoping that some part of them (the soul?) lives on in eternity. Hindus believe that they will be reincarnated -- perhaps as an animal. Other religions believe something entirely different.

Kentuckytel, I'm not telling you that you are wrong, BTW. I'm merely telling you why I don't agree with your premise.

To each his/her own.....

p.s. If a woman does not believe in God (yours or any others), does that make her exempt, and thus able to have an abortion with a "clear conscience"?

[Voltaire2]

145. Why?

Why should beliefs be respected? All beliefs?

Should, for example, flat earth idiocy beliefs be respected?

[Hugh_Lebowski]

155. Religion is DIFFERENT you see, cause it's like 'deeply held beliefs' and shit

So we all must respect both its edicts and adherents, and obediently accept the decrees of its leaders.

Hey, do you remember when organized religion basically ruled a large part of the 'civilized' world?

IOW, 'The Dark Ages'?

[Voltaire2]

158. Being of Irish ancestry that was recent history.

[Handler]

98. This is nothing close to a fact. Don't fall prey to the con men.

[Sogo]

105. There are more than a "couple" of theories on this:

"There are a couple theories on when the soul enters the body; upon conception or just sometime prior to birth."

[Hugh_Lebowski]

115. And absolutely none of them deserve the imprimatur of the word 'theory' (nt)

[NJCher]

132. don't bother

I think it's kind of you to try to enlighten him but it's just a fact that some people have a resistance to believing in souls and the afterlife. They think that just because they fail to detect souls, they don't exist.

You're new, so I will just let you know that Hugh frequently goes on rants like this around here. He's a pretty good natured guy, likable and fun, so we older souls just chuckle and let him act out while we sip our tea, nod, and

This is for the person who wants a link.

Here is the table of contents to an essay that won $500,000 proving the existence of the soul and an afterlife (prize money provided by Robert Bigelow).
The link is below:

snip


"As readers study the top three essays authored by Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove, Dr. Pim van Lommel and Dr. Leo Ruickbie, it will become apparent that there is a great variety of approaches that prove the case for survival of human consciousness after bodily death beyond a reasonable doubt." (link at end of post)

snip

Much of the recent work is based on input from medical doctors who have written about their experiences. There are plenty of them, so while Hugh likes to rant about science science science, in fact medical science people understand and publish on this topic on a regular basis.



Outline.
INTRODUCTION: SOME WHITE CROWS
An After-Death Communication Changes My Life
Postmortem Survival’s Universal Acceptance
Scientism’s Dark Shadow
The Need for a Framework
Does the Brain Create Consciousness?
The astonishing hypothesis
William James’ filtration theory
Hyperspace and consciousness
The quantum soul
THE EVIDENCE
The Spectrum of Arrows
Near-Death Experience
Cardiac arrest hospital studies
Out-of-Body Experience
Life reviews
Indescribable love
Seeing the future
Near-death healing power
After-Death Communications
Paying a debt
Kübler-Ross’ transformative after-death communication
A psychotherapy system born from the grave
While taking a shower
At the time of death
The late, communicative Elisabeth Targ
In a psychotherapy session
In lucid dreams
Prearranged after-death communication
Reincarnation
Ian Stevenson’s methodology
Reincarnation and archetypal synchronistic resonance
Patterns in the data
Intermission memories
Announcing dreams
Peak in Darien Experiences
An ancient example
A young nurse’s surprising death
Eben Alexander’s Proof of Heaven
Possession
The Watseka Wonder
The Shiva/Sumitra case
Implications for psychopathology
Instrumental Trans Communication
Konstantin Raudive’s return
Anabela Cardoso’s voices
Phone calls from the dead
A text message from the dead
Xenoglossy
The Jensen Jacoby case
The Uttara/Sharada case
Mental Mediumship
Leonora Piper
Frederic Myers’ Return
Gladys Osborne Leonard’s mediumship
Medium launches a revolution
Forensic evidence provided by a medium
Discarnate launches psychotherapy approach
Ena Twigg and Bishop James Pike
Legal evidence from Chico Xavier
Murders solved by mediums
The George Chapman/William Lang partnership
The Maróczy/Korchnoi chess match
Physical Mediumship
Preliminary considerations
Walter Stinson’s discarnate persistence
The Scole group
THE FRAMEWORK: CONSCIOUSNESS BEYOND THE BRAIN
Consciousness and Pure Logic
The parsimony principle
Kastrup’s analytical idealism
Psychedelic Research
Terminal Lucidity
Extrasensory Perception and Psychokinesis
The data
Absence of theory
Can living agent psi explain the survival evidence?
CONCLUSION
The Argument and the Evidence
The Price of Ignoring the Evidence
A Final Thought


Link: https://www.nonlocalmind.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Jeff-Mishlove-Essay-for-Bigelow-Institute.pdf

Oh, and here's a little information on Robert Bigelow. You can read about how this multi-millionaire published the above and other works:

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/353002/bigelow-institutes-winning-life-after-death-essays-published

on edit:

wanted to add that I have read that most think the soul enters the body just before birth. FWIW.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

136. Thanks for all y'all putting up with me rants

[Sky Jewels]

154. Because things happen in people's minds

doesn’t mean they happen in reality.

[BruceWane]

165. The table of contents looks impressive

Reading the essay........... not so much.

This garbage is the winner of a half-million dollar prize?

THIS WAS THE BEST ENTRY?



Here's an example of "proof" -

"Terminal Lucidity

This well-documented phenomenon occurs among individuals who have Alzheimer’s disease or who are otherwise brain damaged. Bedridden patients can sometimes sit up, bright-eyed and alert. They can carry on conversations beyond their earlier abilities. Since a severely compromised brain cannot regenerate suddenly like this while a patient is on their deathbed, the most reasonable interpretation is that consciousness can function independently of the brain. One might even say the brain has deteriorated so much it can no longer act as a filter keeping the larger consciousness (or self or soul) from awareness."

Really? That's "the most reasonable interpretation"? REALLY?

"Oh, and here's a little information on Robert Bigelow. You can read about how this multi-millionaire published the above and other works:"

You could have just said "dude made a bunch of money in the motel business and is interested in UFOs and paranormal stuff", it's not like he accomplished some herculean task here.

And...... here's a little MORE information about Robert Bigelow - he's Ron DeSantis' largest campaign contributor. What a guy!!

[Hugh_Lebowski]

173. Thanks for taking it up in my stead ...

I was going to say you might as well try to convince me that's there's REAL SCIENCE that PROVES that there's TWO leprechauns, one at EACH END of the rainbow, and that each of the two has 1/2 of the total amount of gold in their pots!!!1!!

By that I mean I ain't reading it cause ... ya know ... I already know it's bullshit?

[NJCher]

175. will check into

the DeSantis thing (I do not trust you one bit on this), but you could not have possibly read that essay and looked at the embedded videos in the amount of time between when I posted it and your post. What you are doing is picking one small item and using it to discredit the entire essay, and sadly, you don't even do that right.

How about discrediting Mishlove and the other two scientists? Let's hear what you have to say about their reputations.

Or how about these scientists, who also worked on judging the essays:


Here's just one:

Harold Puthoff Ph.D.
Dr. Harold (Hal) Puthoff is President and CEO of EarthTech International, Inc. (ETI), and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (IASA). Earning his Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1967, Puthoff's professional background spans more than five decades of research at General Electric, Sperry, the National Security Agency, Stanford University, SRI International, and, since 1985, as President of ETI and Director IASA.

You're telling me you are a better judge of an essay than this guy?

Please.

All anyone is asking people to do is be fair, and you're not being fair or ethical in your presentation of information.

So yes, go ahead and critique his background and those of the other essay winners, all of whom are Ph.Ds. Oh and btw, do you have a PhD?

tap tap tap

I'm waiting.


on edit: and just for the record, I don't care what you believe, I am not trying to convince you of anything, and your life journey is your own. It's your business, not mine, and I really have no interest in it.

[NJCher]

177. bigelow's political contributions

I checked into it and you are correct that he is the largest contributor to this detestable individual at this moment. Unfortunately he has 42 other billionaires backing him, which makes me sick because I would consider moving from this country if DeSantis ever wins the presidency.

However, I would like to point out that sometimes we have to separate detestable behavior from the work of the person.

Do I like how Pablo Picasso treated women? No, I don't, but I still enjoy his work.

Do I like how Frank Sinatra lived his life? No, I don't, but I still like to listen to his music.

Bigelow sadly falls into that category.

Where you are making your thinking error is saying "Frank Sinatra lived an amoral, degenerate life so his music isn't any good." That's what you're doing.

[BruceWane]

180. Wrong again

You're holding Bigelow up as some kind of champion of scientific research.

Bigelow is the largest contributor to a politician who is actively destroying education and rejects accepted, peer-reviewed science (climate change). Among dozens of other regressive, destructive policies.

If Frank Sinatra actively worked to destroy the music industry, you'd have a point. But he didn't, so you don't.

If Pablo Picasso went about undermining his fellow artists, you'd have a point. But he didn't, so you don't.

[NJCher]

198. wrong again: you

No, you're wrong. Bigelow is not actively destroying education and the climate. DeSantis is the person who is doing that and if Bigelow is there or not, he will still do it because he has plenty of other support.

Do you see where you're making your error? It's a thinking error. Your college writing instructor would not let you get away with this in a first semester writing course.

Read up on logical fallacies.

Index of Logical Fallacies
Ad Hominem
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Ignorance
Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Popular Opinion
Appeal to the Stone
Causal Fallacy
Circular Argument
Equivocation
Fallacy of Sunk Costs
False Dilemma
Genetic Fallacy
Hasty Generalization
Loaded Question Fallacy
Post Hoc Fallacy
Red Herring Fallacy
Slippery Slope Fallacy
Strawman Argument
Tu Quoque
Affirming the Consequent
Affirming the Disjunct
Appeal to Probability
Argument From Fallacy
Conjunction Fallacy
Denying the Antecedent
Denying a Conjunct
Existential Fallacy
Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
Masked-man Fallacy
Non-Sequitur Fallacy

What you are doing is the kind of thing we deplore republicans for doing with their less educated constituents. I would like to think we're better than that.

[Mariana]

205. I notice you didn't apologize for suggesting BruceWane is a liar.

will check into the DeSantis thing (I do not trust you one bit on this)...

[NJCher]

208. with his record of faulty reasoning and using logical fallacies to make his point

He could easily have made a mistake or used sources that were not credible.

"Liar" is your word, not mine.

[NJCher]

209. I want to make this perfectly clear

regarding the essays. A poster has tried to impugn the essays by connecting Bigelow to what the essays say. Bigelow had no part or say whatsoever in the content of the essays. The site makes this perfectly clear:

snip

One hundred percent of the responsibility for judging of the BICS essay contest lay in the hands of the six judges. There was no influence by either Robert Bigelow or Colm Kelleher on the judging process. The essays were chosen by majority rule with the central criterion being the cumulative evidence for Survival of Human Consciousness beyond permanent bodily death and beyond a reasonable doubt. Because of the very large number of excellent essays that BICS received (204), the judges spent over four months of very intensive work in meticulously evaluating, deliberating, arguing and eventually making their decisions.

Link: https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php

Every one of the judges has a Ph.D. and two are also MEDICAL DOCTORS. Many are from the sciences.

Yet we have a poster here who tries to malign the content of the essays because of the person who financed them.

This is a logical fallacy.

The poster will not answer the question: "Do you have a Ph.D?"

The poster has not of yet acknowledged his thinking error nor has he corrected it. He needs to do this. He also needs to stop engaging in cheap allegations that show he has not even read the content being discussed.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

216. Don't you think that the man who financed the contest might've PICKED judges

based on knowing, basically, how they think?

Ergo, while this may be true "There was no influence by either Robert Bigelow or Colm Kelleher on the judging process", that does not preclude the possibility that Bigelow specifically CHOSE them, does it now?

Ya know, kinda like how TFG didn't 'influence' SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Wade ... but he chose 3 of the 6 judges that did so?

I'd also point out that there a plenty of PhD's that have gone on record saying that there's no such thing as Human-Caused Climate Change. There were some that did so with COVID as well. In fact there's even PhD's that say evolution is not real. True story.

It's not hard to find 6 people in the world who are reasonably well-educated ... but still believe in wacky ideas.

But even if these 6 judges didn't have wacky ideas, they were given a JOB, presumably well-paid, right? That job was 'pick the essays that best argue the best for this pre-determined outcome (i.e. there ARE really souls)'. It's a paid gig. People like money, and to have work.

The fact that Ph.D's and medical doctors were the judges doesn't mean much, frankly.

And the fact that you're sitting here harping on someone else's education credentials without having considered the above points yourself (which I honestly think you should have)?

That's pretty much classic 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy.

And the one example given from the essay collection by BruceWane is illustrative, even if just one example, of the pseudo-science that's actually proffered in the collection.

The more important question here is ... were the ESSAYS themselves written by people with scientific doctorates? Do they put their name to them and their reputations on the line?

And most importantly ... WERE THEY PEER-REVIEWED?

[Sky Jewels]

153. Lol!

You believe in pure mythology. A book of fiction written by Bronze Age goat herders is not evidence.

[NJCher]

210. I'll ask you, too

Do you have a Ph.D? Are you a medical doctor?

See post 209.

I'll assume no unless you answer otherwise.

[relayerbob]

7. Clearly, then many GQPpers should be removed from the planet

They never received their souls.

[niyad]

10. A most excellent point.

[Higherarky]

168. +11

[Just A Box Of Rain]

11. Let's fire up the anti-religious bigotry for another round of snark

and really try to alienate the majority of Americans who are people of faith.

Brilliant politics!

And what a way to show others respect

[sarisataka]

17. I always wonder

Why there is no criticism or ridicule of Biden? Virtually every address he makes, he references God multiple times. He ends usually with "God bless us and God bless America" yet no one remarks on his absurd adherence to a Bronze Age mythology.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

23. I assume there is criticism by-stealth.

I've never been a religious person myself, but I know too many people who have been motivated (at least in part) by their faiths to help heal the world, for me to embrace anti-religious bigotry.

Joe Biden is a person of goodwill, whose decency and compassion is intertwined with his Catholicism. I respect the man. Deeply.

[Voltaire2]

35. I hate the god spew from all politicians.

Not going to pick on Biden for doing the shit everyone else does.

[Mariana]

141. Hardly anyone cares if religious people refer to their religion.

Biden refrains from trying to force everyone to live according to his religious beliefs. Therefore, he deserves respect, regardless of whether his religious beliefs are ridiculous.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

149. This! (nt)

[Sky Jewels]

156. It makes me cringe

but he was indoctrinated into supernatural nonsense at a young age, like a lot of people.

Spoiler alert: Jesus isn’t magical and he’s never returning to Earth.

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. Oh, well. I guess we have to entertain the existence of the soul when making public policy.

Wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

26. Yup, you can always count on me for that

It's why I could never be a politician.

And probably why a number of people in this world don't like me much.

I do NOT defer to religion, because it's supernatural nonsense based on the scribblings of Bronze-Age nomads that didn't even know there was such a thing as ovum. They thought the female body was an incubator, and life was created by the 'seed' the man put into the woman, like it was all him.

Believe it or not, the female's genetic contribution was not proven until the 1800's sometime, I forget what year. And even then there was years of debate and controversy, because the idea was contrary to the 'teachings' of the Buy-Bull. Even though it should've been fucking obvious all along by the fact the children very often look more like their mother than their father.

Look I've been saying the same thing since I was 12, I've never wavered, and I won't back down on it to assuage other's tender feelings.

ESPECIALLY NOT when a particular religion is forcing their beliefs and patriarchal claptrap onto others via legislation and orders from on high (like SCOTUS).

I don't begrudge people practicing their religion, but from where I sit, their 'beliefs' better END ... where my body and life and livelihood begins ... or I'm pissed off.

I guess you could say I'm 'out of fucks' on this subject. Esp. the past couple of weeks, Post-Roe.

[Voltaire2]

32. Ah and there it is.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

34. You bet your ass there it is.

Anti-religious bigotry sucks and has no place on a forum for liberal Democrats.

[Voltaire2]

38. You support theocratic fascism?

[Just A Box Of Rain]

72. Insults in the form of a question are still insults.

This post is way out of line.

[Voltaire2]

139. Is it ok with you to mock theocratic fascism?

There is no insult implied or evident. It is a simple question you refuse to answer.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. The OP was not "bigoted", and that's a crappy accusation to make of a DUer

The OP put forward their personal ideas on 'souls', which is just as valid as that of the Pope, Justice Alito, or the guy next door. Disagreeing with people is not 'bigoted'; it's what we all do. The OP explains their reasoning on a matter of high current interest. You just seem to be in the thread to insult DUers.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

76. Nice attempt at "reframing"

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. I'm sorry, your post appears to have been cut off

because all it currently says is 'Nice attempt at "reframing"'. Please make a point, and then I can respond.

[Sky Jewels]

163. Lol.

You've got nothin'.

[Sky Jewels]

162. So if you think beliefs are stupid that makes you a bigot?

That makes you a bigot against Republicans.

[Mariana]

47. Always the threats when we dare to express our opinions.

You better suck up to religious people, because they'll hurt you if you don't.

[Higherarky]

174. & now, a musical interlude, courtesy of the almighty goddess of humor, all praise be

[link:

|

[MineralMan]

213. +1000

Love that song! Best parody song I know of.

[alphafemale]

91. The religious deserve no respect because they are always wanting us to bow to their delusions

With a knee to our neck and a gun to our head.

Someone allowed to say there is no god on a public forum is not a threat or insult to you.

Fragility.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

93. Bigoted intolerance is not permitted under the board rules (because that behavior sucks).

And it doesn't threaten me to have someone say they don't believe in god(s), as I have never believed that myself.

Better to treat others with respect, as opposed to making broad brushed insults IMO.

[Mariana]

143. Have you reported the posts that you consider "bigoted" and "intolerant"?

[Hugh_Lebowski]

147. My problem is just with people trying to make THEIR religion

the basis of laws that affect everyone.

My issue is with a particular ACTION taken by this sub-set of religious people.

On top of that, one's religion is a CHOICE in the first place. It's not an inexorable trait of ANYONE.

Unlike being Black, Gay, ethnically Jewish, etc.

Further I'm not suggesting religious people be disadvantaged.

Ergo, I really don't think what I've said meets any reasonable definition of bigotry.

If a Christian tells a Muslim that your Allah is not real, only my God is real ... is that 'bigotry'?

Or religious disagreement?

I say ... the latter.

And I'm doing no different.

[Sky Jewels]

222. My belief is

the way you try to turn criticism of beliefs into "bigotry" is ridiculous. By your definition, we are "bigots" for pointing out that anti-vaxxers are deluded. We are bigots for saying that beliefs not supported by evidence are not worthy of our respect. That is nonsense. You should give it a rest.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

223. Absolutely false "reframing." I have made no such arguments.

These are inventions on your part.

You are the one who should give it a rest.

Bigotry sucks in all its forms.

[Sky Jewels]

224. You are being bizarrely selective.

You're saying criticizing a belief set is bigotry ... but only if the beliefs are religious. Why is it not "bigotry" to criticize political beliefs? You think there is something about adding a supernatural/magical element to belief sets that automatically sets them apart and puts off limits to criticism. Meanwhile, religious loons on the Supreme Court are imposing their beliefs on every person in the country. What about THAT bigotry?

[Just A Box Of Rain]

232. Criticising political beliefs or the actions of religious figures isn't bigotry.

Bashing entire religions is flat-out bigotry.

Know the difference. And stop rationalizing thinks that are inexcusable.

[Sky Jewels]

233. That argument is just downright nonsensical.

You're randomly drawing a line between unfounded beliefs that doesn't exist. ... "Bashing entire political parties is flat-out bigotry." Why isn't that statement true in your world?

Stop ordering others to adhere to your ridiculous rules.

By the way, when religious people say all atheists will burn in hell, does that count as bigotry?

[Just A Box Of Rain]

235. The so-called "ridiculous rules" are written into this websites TOS

in addition to being the way good liberals operate w/o being told.

[Sky Jewels]

237. I'm not going to pretend to "respect" beliefs that recently turned me

into a second class citizen. Talk about bigotry! The entire framing of the major religions relegate women to "the lesser" and not worthy of any autonomy.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

238. We don't have grounds for further discussion.

Not all religious people wish to strip you or anyone else of your freedoms, quite to the contrary.

Bashing everyone who is religious using the same broad brush is both dishonest and a form of bigotry.

Good day.

[Mariana]

241. Not all religious people wish to strip you or anyone else of your freedoms ...

But the majority of Christian voters in the US do. We know that because the majority of Christian voters in the US voted for Trump, after he promised to strip various groups of people of their freedoms.

[sop]

99. Exactly.

[DickKessler]

119. For the record, I'm religious and I agree with you. A lot of white American Christians especially

have such a ridiculously thin-skinned persecution complex it's frankly embarrassing to the rest of us Christians. You motherfuckers control damn near everything politically and yet you're STILL whining. Ugh!

I can only guess how actual persecuted religious minorities feel about this. I know that some Jewish leaders are opposing the overturning of Roe as an infringement on THEIR religious freedom. Solidarity with them, along with everyone else opposed to the theocrats in the Republican Party/Trump cult--regardless of religion or lack thereof.

[DickKessler]

114. I'm a person of faith and I don't see any anti-religious bigotry here.

Nor do I feel disrespected. In the US, it's specific, right-wing politically-motivated interpretations of a specific religion (Christianity) being IMPOSED on everyone, including Christians like me who don't share those interpretations or the politics associated with them, that are the issue.

And I would dare say that not only do most people on this site agree with me on this, but also, a solid majority of Americans.

[alphafemale]

170. Poor thing

Is your belief system that fragile?

[Just A Box Of Rain]

194. I'm a lifelong atheist, but thanks for the snark.

And God love you.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

16. I know a lot of these radical anti-choice people

Trust me, they have no soul. Can't dance a lick either.

[hatrack]

19. Like when Reagan nominated Watt for Interior way back when . . .

And Watt actually said in his confirmation hearings that:

“That is the delicate balance the Secretary of the Interior must have: to be steward for the natural resources for this generation as well as future generations. I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns; whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations.” - Testimony before the House Interior Committee (February 5, 1981)

And no one said a word about his Holy Hoover Rapturian bullshit.

No one said a word, because Must Respect The Beliefs Of Others. Uh, no.

[DickKessler]

117. Was he the one who was fired for making some horrifically bigoted "jokes?"

Some "loving Christian" there.

[hatrack]

120. That was the guy . . .

[Sky Jewels]

225. Exactly. I was 14 when that happened and that attitude and Reagan's anti-woman religious bullshit

turned me into an instant liberal.

[captain queeg]

22. I remember talking to a Christian many years ago when I first starting meeting some who self

identified that way (which seemed to be kind of rare to me at that time). Occasionally someone might mention what church they attended but more often than not they kept that to themselves. Anyway, we were talking about evolution and man’s development. He didn’t deny the fossil record butt explained biblical human history much the same way that’s being used by antiabortionists. He’d say how did I know when god decided to instill his spirit into man? That we weren’t fully human till that happened (about 6000 yrs ago).

Their go to answer when some scientific fact was inconsistent with their faith. It’s a guaranteed response that will cover anything they don’t want to accept. I guess it’s easier to pull out the magical thinking than ever utilizing critical thinking. And its pretty scary that they are openly striving for political power. When I saw that I was turned off to “Christianity”. Them trying to impose their faith is about as un-American as you can be.

[mwb970]

44. When you point out a blatant contradiction they say "That's God's mystery".

What a racket.

[LiberalFighter]

77. So their god is not willing to share that mystery with them.

[Mariana]

183. According to the Bible

Jesus spoke in parables so people would be confused about his message. It worked, didn't it?

Mark 4 : 10-12 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!”

[Sky Jewels]

228. Jesus and God are playing Super Secret Triple Blind Seven Dimensional Chess!

Don't even question it, mortal! Just keep the money flowing into that collection plate!

[Sky Jewels]

227. It's especially hard to come up with explanations under monotheisms.

With religions that have multiple gods, you can blame bad stuff on bad gods and give credit for good stuff to good gods. Not so with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Their god is obviously a giant murderous baby-starving mass murdering psychopathic asshole, but they pretend that it's "loving." There's no way to reconcile this bullshit, so "mysterious ways" it is.

[mwb970]

252. That's an interesting insight.

[H2O Man]

28. Recommended.

[sarisataka]

29. I won't play devil's advocate,

Because if there is no God there can be no devil, but will pose a logical challenge regarding the beginning of life.

We have laws on the books that impose additional punishment if a fetus is injured during the commission of a crime.

If life begins at conception we have no problem.

However if life begins at birth and prior to that the fetus is merely a clump of cells then it should have no legal recognition. Laws pertaining to a fetus should be struck from the books.

Should such laws be struck down; the woman would be the only victim?

[malaise]

30. There is much confusion

about souls versus assholes - I don't even hear these assholes.

[jaxexpat]

78. Everybody knows that assholes enter their bodies at "quickening".

(They rudely jostle, push and shove the soul because they just have to be first.) Thereafter, they've become too slow to retain an actual "soul". It's in the laws of "Soulular Development in the Quickened Fetus". Paragraph six of Chapter 3, sentence #07, "the asshole as well as the elbows become manifest at the onset of quickening. Where they remain until birth or the 2nd day of the 3rd trimester". Once born and barring divine intervention or failure to wear one of those stupid looking bicycle helmets in heavy traffic at an early age, the asshole is complete (a complete asshole), and we all have to deal with them, especially in early November.

[malaise]

110. Bwaaaaaah

Love it

[Voltaire2]

31. Careful, you might get scolded for mocking religious beliefs.

It’s ridiculous nonsense but apparently we are supposed to pretend otherwise.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

54. Consider yourself hereby scolded!

[Voltaire2]

55. Please sir, may I have another?

[Hugh_Lebowski]

64. Yes, I hereby deliver another scolding, this one even harsher than the last

Wait, what game are we playing?

[Higherarky]

182. What did the masochist say to the sadist?

"Beat me."

What did the sadist say to the masochist?

"No."

[Hugh_Lebowski]

203. Lol ... I was hoping someone would get my joke

[treestar]

56. I don't think he's doing that

Just saying souls are supernatural beings, not real to him.

But can't believe others might think them real.

That's not surprising, though. There are still plenty of believers.

[Voltaire2]

59. Well just look up thread.

The scold had already arrived when I posted.

[Calculating]

36. The delivery needs some work here

Telling everyone that they have no soul and it's all a fairytale to make them feel better about death isn't winning anyone over.

[Voltaire2]

41. Yeah why treat people like they are grown ass adults.

That’ll never work.

[mwb970]

42. I thought it was fine.

"Souls" are not actual things.

[Calculating]

50. Prove it

Eh?

[AnrothElf]

69. The burden of proof is on those...

... making the extraordinary claim.

Prove souls exist.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

148. That which is posited w/o evidence

Can likewise be dismissed without evidence.

Very basic logical principle.

In any OTHER arena, this would be obvious.

But 'religions' have somehow accrued an totally unearned imprimatur in this regard.

Such that you'd NEVER say 'hey! prove unicorns and leprechauns don't exist' if someone posited that they don't exist.

But you'd say ... what you just said.

It's really the same basic question, you just don't realize it, because religions have indoctrinated damn near everyone, even people who aren't religious.

I say we don't grant them that imprimatur.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

58. Fair enough, I'm not proposing my (I guess, strident?) views should be in our political platform

I'm just a random Joe commenting on the internet.

And I would make a horrible politician

[azureblue]

39. let me explain

This is the purpose of the rite of baptism of the newborn. Why? because back in medieval times, unwanted newborns were left out in the woods to die. SO the church conflated John the Baptist's rite into a rite of recognizing the newborn before the church, and naming it, thus giving it a soul, and it is now seen as a person. Without this rite, the newborn is, in the eyes of the church, not a person. Neat, huh?

[mwb970]

40. Bronze Age thinking.

[forgotmylogin]

43. I've always wondered at the religious root of this...

Jesus was supposedly an "immaculate conception" which is one of the miracles that fundamentalist Christians hang onto, and I can't help but think their whole issue with abortion is that they are worried that someone might abort the next coming of Christ.

Never mind that a "virgin" getting pregnant today would either be the result of some heavy denial or an outright lie, or if true, a phenomenal medical oddity that might raise flags scientifically as something extremely wrong.

I guess they never consider that if "god" can cause a selective immaculate conception, one would assume god would select the right individual to bear it and all of our earthly machinations wouldn't even come into play. It's like they don't trust "god" to be able to deliver a miracle that wouldn't be confounded by mortals and put Jesus on Earth if he needs to be on Earth. Which seems to my agnostic brain to be a wild and paradoxical conundrum of faith.

[mwb970]

87. Not to quibble, but "immaculate conception" applies to Mary, not Jesus.

Mary was supposedly born without sin, hence the term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

[Handler]

126. Interesting, I always thought it referred to Jesus's birth . Thanks for the heads up...

Not that I believe a word of the whole fairy tale. But interesting none the less

[mwb970]

150. I did too, up until I happened to read a book about Christianity.

I don't think it really changes your point anyway.

[bluesbassman]

127. And the mental gymnastics required to wrap your brain around that is remarkable.

Technically Jesus didn’t need Mary to not have original sin as it was passed on from the father, and considering God himself was Jesus’ father there was no original sin to pass on. However the Virgin Mary appears to also not possess original sin, but that was a bonus God bestowed upon her. That’s where the pretzel logic really kicks into high gear. If God, who invented original sin, could absolve it for Mary “just because”, why go through all the gyrations to produce a “son” that had to die for our “sins”? Personally I think it was all marketing. How else was he going to sell all of those bibles?

[mwb970]

152. Pretzel logic indeed.

It reminds me a little of the "epicycles within epicycles" models the ancients dreamed up to explain planetary motions while still keeping the Earth as the immovable center of the Universe.

[Warpy]

53. The whole antiabortion movement in politics violates the separation clause

and everybody knows that. The separation clause is the main thing Christians want thrown out of the Bill of Rights.

They do that, expect religious infighting to break out everywhere.

[Caliman73]

63. You are overthinking it.

There is a brand of fundamentalist Christianity that is pushing this "debate" from conservative Catholics to the more hardline Protestant denominations, to the grifter mega churches who just see this as a way to gain power and money.

Most people in the US, whether affiliated to a religious tradition or not, prefer the choice. It is the extremists who drive the whole, "Soul" debate because it is a tactic that allows them to represent themselves as "being persecuted" for their beliefs.

The extremists think that their particular brand of Christianity should be the only word on this topic.

If we were to decide tomorrow that Christianity were the "National Religion", I guarantee that all of those churches who have been united in the "pro-life" and anti-LGBTQ efforts, would immediately turn on each other. The Protestant churches would go after the Catholics, then they would turn on each other, and Greg Locke would be calling them all "witches". They may say it is about being righteous and preparing for Judgement and the kingdom of heaven, but they behave A LOT like it is about earthly power and wealth.

[Marthe48]

68. Religion doesn't enter into it-it's a scam

The bible and laws created when humankind were creating governments are a lot more realistic about the when life begins-first breath and all that.

Our country has a separation of church and state. Any discussion that includes religion influencing our government and laws is absurd and needs to be shut down.

[sagetea]

71. You know...

I agree. I'm not in any religion, but I hope. I hope we have a soul, a connection to something. And I believe (my very own belief) in magic. I believe math is magical, truly I do! Because until this year, I didn't know much about math, about algebra, but when I went to my first college math class, everything made sense, and to me that was magical.

However, organized religious people should carry their beliefs quietly, and in their own communion with their god. They should never blast it out and shove it down our throats.

sage

[Bev54]

75. I agree, I do not have religious beliefs at all but I do believe

in Mother Nature and right now she is kicking our asses. That is scientific.

[milestogo]

81. Catholics also distinguish between "apparent death" and "actual death"

The latter is when the soul leaves the body, according to Catholic doctrine.

I learned this when reading about Father Huber's conversation with Jackqueline Kennedy after he administered the last rites to JFK:

https://www.jfklibrary.org/sites/default/files/archives/JFKOH/Huber%2C%20Oscar%20L/JFKOH-OLH-01/JFKOH-OLH-01-TR.pdf

[Dysfunctional]

86. If you study quantum mechanics, you will find that it does not prove the "soul" exists,

but that the existence of the "soul" fits within the laws of physics. Also, that death only happens to the physical body, not the energy which is immortal.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

97. Yeah, no I really doubt I would find that, even if I study quantum mechanics

One reason I speculate thusly is there's absolutely no writings from Bronze-Age nomads that appear to be scientifically advanced beyond what people already 'knew' (most of it ... wrongly) at the time.

Your argument implies that these clueless people had this ONE great insight that relies on understanding of the rules discovered in the recent study of Quantum Mechanics ... but absolutely zero other 'revelations' about how things worked in the universe that was not specifically part of human understanding at that time?

Not buying.

[Dysfunctional]

102. I didn't write those religions had scientific knowledge about the soul.

I was referring to people now who say it doesn't exist. There isn't any proof either way, just that it is scientifically possible.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

113. I didn't say you did, I explained why I doubt the fundamental idea in play

in what you're suggesting.

Basically, for Bronze-Age nomads to *accurately* describe the nature of a concept that would comport with the laws specific to quantum mechanics, which were entirely unknown to them at the time (and they exhibited zero evidence of ANY advanced scientific knowledge) strikes me as highly unlikely.

It would effectively signify an incredibly advanced 'revelation', where there are NO others even remotely similar.

I mean, these people still believed the Universe revolved around the Earth.

And incredibly unlikely things ... usually do not occur.

But I understand what you're actually saying in your post, so no need to clarify further

[muriel_volestrangler]

142. No, it's not "scientifically possible"

The idea of an immortal soul goes directly against the laws of quantum physics, in which known particles and 4 known forms of force interact. These particles and forces are nothing like any religion's claim of a "soul".

If we think about what is scientifically possible, we observe that brain damage can cause loss of memory and personality change. It's clear that a living brain, with oxygen and nourishment, is required for our consciousness, and that our consciousness is affected by the environment - the chemical balance of our bodies, and our experiences and how they relate to our past experience. To claim that we have a "soul" that will go on existing, usually claimed as forever, without our body and what it gives to the brain directly contradicts all the science we know, whether it's quantum physics or biology.

[Voltaire2]

160. Quantum Physics gets rolled out because it

is mind numbingly complicated and hardly anyone understands it and Einstein unfortunately uttered the phrase ‘spooky action at a distance’ so certainly one can stick god into that and nobody can really disagree.

[Dysfunctional]

178. It is not an immortal soul. What physicists are talking about is energy.

[Mariana]

186. If it's energy, then call it energy.

Why attach the word "soul" to that?

[Dysfunctional]

189. I was trying, but not doing it too well that there is a difference between religious soul

and what quantum physicists call our energy.

[Voltaire2]

140. Define 'soul' and the explain how quantum mechanics

supports the existence of this thing.

[Dysfunctional]

176. It is not a soul in the religious sense. Actually, it is totally different.

What physicists are talking about is energy.

[Voltaire2]

179. I'll wait.

You haven’t defined it other than ‘energy’. Yes energy/matter are the realm of physics and quantum mechanics.

What this has to do with ‘soul’ is still not clear.

[Dysfunctional]

187. I was wrong to use the word "soul".

The religious word soul has nothing to do with energy.

[Voltaire2]

201. Ok. So what does energy have to do with this thread?

At this point I have no idea what your post meant. I mean I can guess that you think ‘you’ are somehow permanently encoded in ‘energy’, but that is just a guess.

[867-5309.]

89. Consciousness takes 6-7 months

That's what's relevant, imo.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

116. And I'm amenable to THAT ... because it's at least arguably a legitimate demarcation point

Based on ... you know, actual science.

[Handler]

95. You are correct...

The church is where you get your soul saved. It’s sort of like buying a ticket to heaven, and those tickets make a huge amount of money for the big churches. It’s a grift run by grifters.

[Mad_Machine76]

101. The question of when the soul enters the body

is a spiritual one and, as our country is not supposed to be a theocracy, the argument is totally irrelevant/moot. In fact, the argument about whether or not abortion is actually murder is bound up in religious dogma that isn't even universal in its position and thus again totally irrelevant/moot, which is why the abortion "debate" is so frustrating. We shouldn't be having these kind of debates over abortion in a secular democratic country such as ours.

[txwhitedove]

107. Agree.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

202. A great alternate summation of what I was trying to say, thanks :) (nt)

[Solly Mack]

103. K&R

[sop]

104. This thread really underscores why religious belief should never be a part of political debate.

[Sky Jewels]

211. R'amen

[kairos12]

106. Fantasy Industrial Complex at Work

Been here from the beginning.

[andym]

109. Given the high failure rate of embryonic development, the religious have to explain why God punishes

so many innocent "souls."
As many as 60% of fertilized embryos spontaneously abort.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216658597

[Mariana]

146. Oh, that one's easy.

God's rules (as they interpret them) only apply to human beings. God is not bound to obey them himself. Therefore, it isn't wrong for God to kill billions of embryos.

[DBoon]

185. so God is a republican?

The rules apply to everyone else?

[Mariana]

206. It's the ultimate "might makes right".

God is all-powerful, so everything he does is right.

[DickKessler]

111. Right-wingers often say that separation of church and state only protects churches from the state.

Not the other way around.

They openly admit that they want a theocracy.

[NNadir]

112. Me neither.

[Mr.Bill]

118. It'll get scary when some judge

allows it to be introduced into a courtroom.

[intrepidity]

121. Thank God I'm an athiest nt

[Tumbulu]

131. It was central to the Roe V Wade decision

At least this is what I learned when I took a Constitutional law class in 1977 shortly after that decision was rendered.

We read every document and dissent at the time.

And the way it addresses the discussion in that decision seemed so very elegant to me.

The Justices examined this belief through the view of every one of the major religions practiced in the US and describe when each of these religions believes that the soul enters the body.

The range described in that decision is from conception to first breath of the newborn. But most of the mainstream Christian faiths considered it to occur sometime around what used to be described as “quickening” ( after the 15 th week). However, since the major religious faiths practiced in the US had no agreement whatsoever about this the Justices went to medical and health outcomes at each of the different trimesters.

Up until the third trimester it is safer for the pregnant person to abort than go through the pregnancy and delivery. After the third trimester an abortion is more dangerous. Significantly more.

So they determined that the state could not impose a physical risk on a person and therefore states are allowed to regulate only after the third trimester. As that is when the abortion represents a medical risk. Which of course the medical profession regulates as well.

Anyway, in reading Dobbs, I was struck by the weird combinations both rudeness and stupidity in the argument and the writing. If indeed it was written by one of these justices, they should be really embarrassed.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

134. Great post, thx for the history lesson!

Really, religion should MAYBE figure in legally if say, a Jewish man is asking his Catholic wife to have an abortion, and she wants to say NO based on her religion, and it went to court.

In other words, you shouldn't be FORCED INTO an abortion if it violates your religious values.

Having it work the other way around? Where you can be denied an abortion based on OTHER PEOPLE'S religious beliefs?

That would be (and is currently) friggin BS.

Which that SCOTUS correctly identified at the time, sounds like.

[Tumbulu]

137. You are most welcome

and my outrage over this monstrous so called court is unbound.

The Roe v Wade decision is so elegantly written and reasoned.

[Higherarky]

135. Yes. I agree with "religious exemptions",

but first and foremost, I am solid on bodily autonomy for EVERYONE.

It is my long-considered opinion that we are each simply a spark in the thread of energy that powers the universe. No beginning. No end.

[Sky Jewels]

151. Exactly. I can't believe modern people still believe

this idiotic supernatural nonsense.

[Noodleboy13]

157. You would think that with the medical imaging technology

we have now, someone would have video of this. Maybe it's done through Santa/The Stork teamwork, everybody knows they're invisible.


peace,
Noodleboy

[ismnotwasm]

171. That's what it's about for forced birth Christianity

They believe in a magical presence intrinsic in the human body. It’s the core of their “life begins at conception” bullshit. Of course there is “life” —they think there a soul infused group of cells.

I hate those fuckers

[spanone]

172. K&R

[Model35mech]

181. As a PhD Biologist, Texas A&M, I have 2 words for the 'life begins at' debate'

Cell Theory.

My advice is 'follow the science", just as you have during the pandemic misinformation storm.

But, you are, of course, absolutely free to put your 'faith' in any narrative you want.

Have a nice day

[DBoon]

184. Soul is real

Listen to James Brown.

He is the godfather of soul.

When soul enters your body you sing and dance.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

190. THAT kinda soul ... for sure mr. minutemen

[Progressive dog]

188. I avoid those news shows.

The unobservable and supernatural have nothing to do with news.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

193. The Church of Holy Hateful Wrath (formerly, U.S.A.) shall smite thee, non-believer!

[Hortensis]

229. Always has been. Government of, by, and for the people.

As long as a significant bloc of the people believe that, it will be a critical part of the debate.

Democracy. Representative government.

[MineralMan]

234. Really, the entire question of "ensoulment" is specious.

It is based on the "soul" being a real thing. However, there is no non-faith-based evidence for the existence of the soul. The existence of the soul is strictly a religious belief, based on faith in the supernatural. There is no real proof of even the existence of any deity or deities. Some people have faith that such entities exist. Other people simply don't believe that at all.

There are so-called "proof" about deities and souls, but all of those "proofs" are based on false premises, rather than objective evidence, of which there is none whatsoever. They all require circular logic, based on a non-provable initial premise.

Because of that, all such arguments are easily dismissible on logical grounds.

[GoodRaisin]

236. The only thing relevant to this discussion is we shouldn't even be having it

if we follow the 1st Amendment of our Constitution. Period.

Yet, here we have arrived.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

244. Hence my complaint ;) (nt)

[RANDYWILDMAN]

246. Women's right to control their own body

is the only way this should be talked about.

If 100% of men were affected by anything, there would be a law allowing them to control their body's since the beginning of time

[Hugh_Lebowski]

247. That would be 1st and foremost by a long stretch ...

But there's also the matter of societal costs imposed by children who were unwanted (usually for sound reasons in any number of ways) most likely not turning out as well, on the average, vs. children that were desired from the start.

And then there's also the effects of additional population, which isn't great for climate change, resource depletion, etc.

I know it's bad form to mention this, but males can also be inconvenienced ... if they and their pregnant partner agreed together they want to terminate, and then they're not allowed to. Obviously it's worse for the pregnant person, but males can also be generally affected in that situation.

Basically this issue pushes damn near every 'annoyance' button I have.