3 ms·

Ho ho courting controversy. The difference is you don't know if there's a difference: when does the soul come in? Maybe you don't believe in souls but can you

Ho ho courting controversy. The difference is you don't know if there's a difference: when does the soul come in? Maybe you don't believe in souls but can you disprove that they exist? is the personality only some sort of construct that's formed as a child is raised? Or is there something eternal spiritual inside? It doesn't have to trip your anti-religious ADS, maybe it's a fact about the universe we haven't found a way to measure yet. Giving you don't know and can't be sure don't you think it's better to err on the side of caution? But putting that aside like I think it should be possible to create embryos that don't have souls but these non-soul persons are they any less human or deserving of human Rights than soul persons, given they can experience pain and suffering just the same as soul embodied humans? The future is just a giant big can of worms I don't think anyone can strive so confidently into it sure of that they're coming down right on the ethical issues.

samus 4y ago
How would we be able to tell that a person has no soul? How can we even say that we have a soul? The problem with the existence of the soul is that there is no definition of what the soul is for science to prove or disprove its existence. Right now it's just a fuzzy term to be employed in religious rhetoric.
- graderjs 4y ago
  Too logical. Don't be so materialistic. People talk about souls right there has to be something to that. No definition doesn't mean doesn't exist, maybe means we don't understand. We don't understand everything. We should err on the side of caution. It's not just religious. Too much of an onerous connotation. Unnecessary. It's part of our history, our cultural, our art. It's something we as humans know to be true. Like consciousness. Can we "tell" that we are conscious. Can we "say" that we are conscious, as you say. The problem with the existence of consciousness is there is not definition of what consciousness is for science to prove or disprove its existence. Right not it's just a fuzzy term employed in grant applications. C'mon. We have to recognize the limits of what we know and not be so fucking arrogant to think we can just pontificate, but more importantly, act, beyond that. If we don't know it has a soul, how we kill it? It's like saying: "You can press a button, and that will release a poison gas into a box, and there's some probability that there's something alive in that box." The thing is, you don't know. Is there a life in there, or is there not? You don't know. But you really think it's ethical to take that chance? Or...to fallback on some psuedo-scientific notion that "we (our instruments) can't definite it yet" so it can't exist. I'm sorry, that's not good enough. We might just be talking about the eternal part of ourselves, or at least at part that survives incarnation in this body. How are we so arrogant to say: Yeah, we totally know the truth, let's just kill everything (or experiment on everything) that we're sure there's no life in. Ugh...anyway, thank you for engaging. I'm not taking a pot shot at you. I'm not saying you think all these things. Just a chance to expound on this subject. Have a good night! :) ;p x ;p
colanderman 4y ago
> Maybe you don't believe in souls but can you disprove that they exist? Can you disprove that mouse souls exist?
- graderjs 4y ago
  Exactly...you can't; I don't think. You misunderstand me, I'm not saying it's OK! :P :) xx ;p

samus 4y ago

How would we be able to tell that a person has no soul? How can we even say that we have a soul? The problem with the existence of the soul is that there is no definition of what the soul is for science to prove or disprove its existence. Right now it's just a fuzzy term to be employed in religious rhetoric.

graderjs 4y ago
Too logical. Don't be so materialistic. People talk about souls right there has to be something to that. No definition doesn't mean doesn't exist, maybe means we don't understand. We don't understand everything. We should err on the side of caution. It's not just religious. Too much of an onerous connotation. Unnecessary. It's part of our history, our cultural, our art. It's something we as humans know to be true. Like consciousness. Can we "tell" that we are conscious. Can we "say" that we are conscious, as you say. The problem with the existence of consciousness is there is not definition of what consciousness is for science to prove or disprove its existence. Right not it's just a fuzzy term employed in grant applications. C'mon. We have to recognize the limits of what we know and not be so fucking arrogant to think we can just pontificate, but more importantly, act, beyond that. If we don't know it has a soul, how we kill it? It's like saying: "You can press a button, and that will release a poison gas into a box, and there's some probability that there's something alive in that box." The thing is, you don't know. Is there a life in there, or is there not? You don't know. But you really think it's ethical to take that chance? Or...to fallback on some psuedo-scientific notion that "we (our instruments) can't definite it yet" so it can't exist. I'm sorry, that's not good enough. We might just be talking about the eternal part of ourselves, or at least at part that survives incarnation in this body. How are we so arrogant to say: Yeah, we totally know the truth, let's just kill everything (or experiment on everything) that we're sure there's no life in. Ugh...anyway, thank you for engaging. I'm not taking a pot shot at you. I'm not saying you think all these things. Just a chance to expound on this subject. Have a good night! :) ;p x ;p

colanderman 4y ago

> Maybe you don't believe in souls but can you disprove that they exist? Can you disprove that mouse souls exist?

graderjs 4y ago
Exactly...you can't; I don't think. You misunderstand me, I'm not saying it's OK! :P :) xx ;p