Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Rose]

It's interesting to note here that Hindu belief is that the soul is separate from the mind completely.

There's the soul, which is eternal, then there's the subtle body, consisting of the mind, intelligence, and ego, and finally the gross body, which is the physical one you see.

[TempAcc]

Hermeticism also separates the soul from the mind, defining the mind as the actual source of your being (IE who and what you really are), while the spirit is kind of a body that you use as an interface to control your physical body. Both the spirit and the physical body would be discarded when you die.

Spiritism/Spiritualism takes this a step further by dividing humans on 4 bodies, which are the physical body, the vital essence, the soul and the mental body. The vital essense is what powers your physical body and keeps your soul tied to it, and dies along with the physical body on death. The vital essence also acts as a limiter, and generally prevents memories of your past lives from affecting your current incarnation. The difference between the soul/spirit and your mind isn't always properly described, but its has been explained that the soul is how your mind interacts with the universe, with your mind being your true self.

Gnosticism defines the soul as one of the sparks of divinity that got trapped in the physical universe by the demiurge.

The brain could be interpreted as the physical interface through which the soul interacts with the body through chemical reactions and electrical impulses.

Regardless of how its described, the concept of souls is old as hell, and may even predate religion. In fact it may have been the very thing that originated many religions (and not the other way around), but this is just speculation.

On animals: I don't know, I respect animals as living beings, but I don't believe animals are somehow magical and exempt from being evil. I'm not the kind of person that believes dogs are completely angelic beings that are only capable of love, or that some animals are inherently noble because they're pretty or such things.
I'm ok with killing insects and other things that trespass into my personal space because, well, that's a natural behavior. I mean, there are animals that will kill things for trespassing into their territory, so why wouldn't I? There are also animals that kill for fun and seem to take pleasure in torture, like dolphins.
I do believe love, empathy and compassion are virtues everyone should aim to have, but I'm omnivorous, and I'll eat meat if it is available to me, and I'll kill things if I'm in a state of need, or to protect myself or things that I want to protect.

[Graknorke]

I believe in what we all believed 5000 years ago, and have since denied.  It wasn't SCIENCE that changed our minds, it was other faiths.  Consolidation of thousands of spirits into pantheons of hundreds, or dozens, then eventually into monotheisms.  We STILL feel things whispering to us in the dark.  And in the light, looking over a landscape or deep forest.  We just tried to name and thus know them, or in rare cases ignore them.  But I'm pretty sure we all feel them.

You can't just push your beliefs onto everybody else :/

And I don't really get how people drawing animals supports what you've said. All it means is that they wanted to draw animals because they're something important.

[BFEL]

I care much more for a human being than for a random animal.

In many cases BFEL is the exact opposite.

Fluffyness is probably the scariest evolutionary mutation other then smarties.
The only reason panda's are still alive now is because they are fluffy and thus we try to fight their suicidal refusal to mate for them.

[TD1]

It's not a suicidal tendency, given they don't try to kill themselves. They just don't make more pandas.

[scrdest]

It's not a suicidal tendency, given they don't try to kill themselves. They just don't make more pandas.

I'd think a poet would recognize a non-obvious usage of a word

It is a suicidal tendency - on a species level. It's very obviously not one on an individual level; hell, quite the opposite considering the amount of resources an individual must expend to raise a child if the reproductive strategy isn't 'Birth get, gg, now fuck off and survive or whatever'.

[TD1]

Ah, but I'm not a poet. I'm just an aspiring village bumpkin.

[scrdest]

Ah, but I'm not a poet. I'm just an aspiring village bumpkin.

Funny, I had almost word for word the exact same reaction when called a musician. First rule of the Aspiring Bumpkin Club is we do not talk about not being in the Aspiring Bumpkin Club.

[Bohandas]

Please don't eat me, Helgy.

Hey, I'm a vegetarian already! There's no need to worry about eating, unless a session of how gay can you go turns out horribly wrong.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

I may be a vegetarian, but fuck animals. Who gives a shit about them? I'd avoid torturing them more than necessary, but they're certainly not significantly different from the plants that I eat or the rocks that we crush to forge our tools.

That's true, but really the same can be said of people as well if you really want to look at things objectively.

Sure! Why do we consider war not to be immoral in general, but just in most particular instances? Because we're not against killing people if it's done in the right context. We're just against killing people in most cases - much like I'm against killing or torturing animals in most cases as well.
The difference is of course quantitative: I care much more for a human being than for a random animal.

I'm actually more against war than most people. I believe that even if it isn't possible to solve something peacefully it's generally at least possible to solve it with assassinations; but people seem to be opposed to assassinations for some reason.

[Helgoland]

Naah, with assassinations there's usually a replacement that's about as bad.

[MonkeyHead]

That, and they are often used as a justification for a war. Franz Ferdinand, anyone?

[TD1]

We'd be better off settling it with some non-lethal competition.

Who wants to have a thumb war over Ukraine! Anyone?

[Graknorke]

Assassinations are ineffective and built resentment where it can easily do what it wants. Countries are not a single person, the leader is just a reflection of larger social trends. They will be replaced and the replacement won't be much better if at all. A war in general is going to be seen as more "fair" and at the same time be more effective at actually stopping the other country from doing the thing you don't want them to do.

[Bohandas]

Repeated assassinations then. Also wars create ill will and resentment too.


EDIT:
And the preception of relative fairness is part of the reason why I oppose wars. Because it derives from unneceaasrily risking your own people when you might have wiped out your enemy remotely or clandestinely and spared your people entirely; it derives from poor governance.

[Graknorke]

Are you one of those people who thinks that assassinating Hitler would have stopped WW2? Because it wouldn't. He didn't get elected because his ideas were outliers. Being upset with the rest of the world, desiring more national power, and hating Jews were all the prevailing opinions.