|
SilverBoat -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (2/19/2012 10:55:42 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:
ORIGINAL: SilverBoat
Of course, the religious nuts will (or have) backtrack(ed), and assert that something like multi-re-conception occurs at the instant of mitosis. Or maybe that their god anticipated the split(s) and arranged for multiple souls at the moment of acrisomy. Or something else entirely.
Any of those is every bit as good (or bad) as the claim that there can only be one soul or none at the time of conception.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SilverBoat
The smarter nuts will realize they've been caught out and start weaseling, the dumber dupes will retreat into denial, citing 'authorities' and personal attacks. See the replies above (and possibly below) this for examples of that.
Even smarter still would be to realize that this pseudo-intellectual crap-trap is riddled with assumptions and holes, and useful only for its value as humor. But, of course, there will be those who retreat into denial, insisting it's solid as a rock and calling people "nuts" and "dupes".
K.
Frankly, there so many different combinations and permutations of morons and idiots who remain duped by lunatics and psychos that using convoluted politically-correct terminology-dujour to address the full spectrum in all discussions would consume more time and effort than I prefer or intend to apply sort of some scholarly best-seller that I probably won't ever write. From what I can tell, 'religions' have/had consisted of precious few relatively honest visionaries, somewhat more good-willed disciples, too many machiavellian monsters, ranks and files of pragmatic petty beaurocrats, swaths of often well-intentioned adherents. and unfortunately blundering hordes of desperate ignorami who are variously conned and bullied by the monsters and beaurocrats. YMMV, of course, but "dupes" and "nuts" condenses the negative aspects of those in conveniently brief typing time and column inches.
As far as I'm concerned, if the postulated metaphysical 'souls' exist, then there's nothing particularly wrong with them developing along with the physical being into which they're supposedly associated. Viewing 'souls' as a continua, from completely non-existent to whatever level of self-awareness, might be too much of a paradigm shift for some people to handle, and it certainly could lead to inconveniently (for some people) complicated conclusions about equality, responsibility, etc. For all humans know, there could be plasma entities at the scale of suns or galaxies, who view carboxy-lifeforms as something between pests or pets if they're even aware of such. Or perhaps quarks and atoms might be praying that the human pantheon does more or less nuclear reactions, because it makes more of them or sends some of them to gamma-photon nirvana.
If there's a more open-minded view of what 'souls' might be, go ahead and air it. I've pondered much wider ranges of possibilities of what 'souls' might be than outlined above, so wide that it'd take hours to just get started on descriptions.
... shrug ... I'm not someone who takes words or acts from centuries or decades past, or the rehashing of those however many times by whoever, as having any particular truth-value unless those continue make sense within the context of the entirety of repeatably consistent real-life experience. So far, despite almost a half-century of looking into such matters, I've never seen an iota of rigorous proof that 'souls' exist, or that any of the various specs about when, where, what, how of 'souls' have any basis in fact. But I haven't stopped looking, I just have perhaps higher benchmarks for 'proof' than most people do.
Pax. I'm going sailing.
SB
|
|
|
|
