Thread: why does someone in full reason..

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Thats good that we agree on this, however, the point of the matter has not been addressed. What about the rest of the material I posted? Any thoughts?

Yes-- Neanderthals 'expressed themselves spiritually' through cave paintings and other fors of art. They also buried their dead. Neanderthals, however, aren't 'human'; they are a sister species. A;sp. both are apes and belong to the higher primate family.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Now you're back to the beaver argument. Humans are apes. Please define soul and spirit.

We've tackled soul already why would you ask for a defintion now and not then? If we've come to an agreement on the fact that every living thing has a soul why would you require the defintion as this area of the argument has been met.

Soul = Life force of all living things. It's not an immaterial portion of any living entity.

Spirit = The incorporeal supernatural being; beings, that can become visible or audible to humans.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Spirit = The incorporeal supernatural being; beings, that can become visible or audible to humans.

That is one of the least spiritual definitions that I have ever read. I loathe the word of 'supernatural'. Nothing exists that is not natural. Whatever you think is supernatural doesn't exist or is natural. It's really a matter of definition though.

Fine. At what point in our evolutionary history did we acquire a spirit? Did neanderthals have spirits? A Roxxor did bring up a good point with them. I know that you 'finished him' already but that's a pretty good point and given the fact that you are about to 'finish me' on the other thread, I can only conclude that your 'finishing' of him didn't bear much weight. Dude, we were finished with you before you got here.

EDIT: I asked for a definition of soul at this point to differentiate it from spirit. You're using two words as if they are distinct that I would normally take to be synonymous. Hence a definition is called for.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Fine. At what point in our evolutionary history did we acquire a spirit?

The Spirit within each and every living breathing creature is simply "The invisible life-force" its the spark of life that keeps the cell and a person alive. This life-force is sustained by breathing. Every living breathing creature posses a spirit.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Did neanderthals have spirits?

Yes

Originally Posted by PhilospherStoned

A Roxxor did bring up a good point with them. I know that you 'finished him' already but that's a pretty good point and given the fact that you are about to 'finish me' on the other thread, I can only conclude that your 'finishing' of him didn't bear much weight. Dude, we were finished with you before you got here.

Referring to A Roxxors point. Neanderthals were not spiritually expressive. Do YOU think they were?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

We are the only species on the planet that has this expression by nature in which is a huge seperation from animals as animals are only body and soul Humans are body, soul, spirt.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

The Spirit within each and every living breathing creature is simply "The invisible life-force" its the spark of life that keeps the cell and a person alive. This life-force is sustained by breathing. Every living breathing creature posses a spirit.

So would you say then that animals are not only body and soul but body soul and spirit? Would you further go on to say that you have looking at you a huge fucking contradiction that you are going to have to do some gymnastics to get around?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Referring to A Roxxors point. Neanderthals were not spiritually expressive. Do YOU think they were?

I think that burying your dead is 'spiritually expressive'. Cave paintings could surely be (and generally are) considered to be so.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

So would you say then that animals are not only body and soul but body soul and spirit? Would you further go on to say that you have looking at you a huge fucking contradiction that you are going to have to do some gymnastics to get around?

You're right I did mistype that, Animals are body, soul, spirit, Humans are body, soul, spirit, however, as I said over and over again the major distinction between humans and animals is the fact that humans are spiritually expressive and animals are not.

Originally Posted by PhilospherStoned

I think that burying your dead is 'spiritually expressive'. Cave paintings could surely be (and generally are) considered to be so.

So you believe that The Neantherdhals were burying the dead for spiritual reasons, tens of thousand of years before the introduction of religions?

haha Ne-yo you're slipping, never thought I see you make such a simple mistake. You ok?

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

haha Ne-yo you're slipping, never thought I see you make such a simple mistake. You ok?

Where have you been? LOL work has me mentally stressed and exhausted that I can't even think straight. Im good. Hit me on PM.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You're right I did mistype that, Animals are body, soul, spirit, Humans are body, soul, spirit,

So once again, we agree. Either everything alive has a body soul and spirit or none of it does.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So you believe that The Neantherdhals were burying the dead for spiritual reasons, tens of thousand of years before the introduction of religions?

I'll get back to you on that.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Neanderthals were not spiritually expressive.

If neanderthals were not sprititually expressive, then why are humans? Neanderthals showed all of the signs of culture (And thus, religion at some level): Art, social order, ceremonies for the deceased. I think a big indicator of an animal that is 'spiritually expressive' is its ability to recognize death and understand it to some degree. However since Neanderthals never devloped written language we have no idea how devloped their culture was. Their hunter-gatherer nature probably meant it was not very devloped, but the presence of art is a great indicator of what you call 'spirituality'.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

So once again, we agree. Either everything alive has a body soul and spirit or none of it does.

Yes we do agree on this, however thats not the focal point on why I was saying Human and Apes are not one in the same. Humans being the only species that is spiritual expressive by nature is one of the main and largest distinctions between us and other species.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

If neanderthals were not sprititually expressive, then why are humans?

Humans are made in the image of God, it's in our nature to recognize a higher order of spiritual essence as this mode of reference is embedded within our makeup.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Neanderthals showed all of the signs of culture (And thus, religion at some level): Art, social order, ceremonies for the deceased. I think a big indicator of an animal that is 'spiritually expressive' is its ability to recognize death and understand it to some degree. However since Neanderthals never devloped written language we have no idea how devloped their culture was. Their hunter-gatherer nature probably meant it was not very devloped, but the presence of art is a great indicator of what you call 'spirituality'.

I have never heard or seen any cave paintings by Neanderthals that showed any indication of them expressing themselves spiritually. I've seen indications of normal activities which included hunting. You can only go back roughly 25,000 years to find any activity of spiritual expression and thats in the form of relics and idol figurines to display some sense of recognization of a higher power that is believe to be beyond this world.

Burials are another concept. As I do believe and fully acknowledge that Neanderthals buried their dead. I'm at a lost to understand why you as an Atheist would come to the conclusion that they were burying their dead to show a spiritual expression and not because they were simply trying to protect the corpses from predators and scavengers at the time. Which one sounds more feasible to you?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The Hell aspect of Christianity scared the ever living bejesus out of me when I was a kid, like age 8 to 16. It gave me the opposite of peace of mind. The most peace of mind I ever had in life was when I was 0-4 years old and did not really know what God was supposed to be. (The reasons go beyond that, of course.) I went to Sunday school and church in those years, but all I knew was that we colored pretty pictures in Sunday school and listened to some asshole yelling about who knows what in church.

Being an atheist is what prevented me from committing suicide during two different horrbile depressions long ago. I kept thinking about how there would be absolutely nothing if I ended my life. That kept me alive. If I had thought I would go to Heaven, I would have gone through with suicide.

Proof of my assertion that some people use religion in all the wrong ways, for all the wrong purposes. Just because you've experienced religion as used by dickheads who want to coerce you doesn't mean that religions themselves are designed to be coercive. Blame the man who pulls the trigger rather than the gun itself, for the gun has no convictions, no ability to judge what is right and what is wrong.

Originally Posted by packmania

Guns are not evil and neither is religion. The world would be better off without the idiots who abuse them.

Fixed.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

'Purpose' is man-made. Some things we create are made with a purpose in mind, others are not. Regarding things we didn't make, it's neither, 'purpose' does not apply to those. What's the purpose of a rock?

Humanity gives a purpose to it's gods, not the other way around.

So you argue against a one-way street (religion gives humanity purpose) by presenting another one-way street (humanity gives religion purpose) as an argument. Is it so hard for you to believe that both are true to some degree?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Yes we do agree on this, however thats not the focal point on why I was saying Human and Apes are not one in the same. Humans being the only species that is spiritual expressive by nature is one of the main and largest distinctions between us and other species.

Humans are apes. An ape is not an animal, it is a type of animal.

Humans are made in the image of God,

According to you.

it's in our nature to recognize a higher order of spiritual essence as this mode of reference is embedded within our makeup.

Also according to you and pretty much just based on your own assumptions.

I have never heard or seen any cave paintings by Neanderthals that showed any indication of them expressing themselves spiritually.

That's because you don't want to, and so keep changing your definition of what spirituality is. Humans are NOT the only animals who have/had display(ed) are and are NOT the only who buried their dead. Since both of these things would be indicators of culture, and culture is what you say makes humans special, and spiritual, then neanderthals must have been spiritual.

Also, http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterOne/LascauxCave.htm

Building a scaffolding to draw a picture on the wall of a cave? And you think they are 'lesser' than humans?

Burials are another concept. As I do believe and fully acknowledge that Neanderthals buried their dead. I'm at a lost to understand why you as an Atheist would come to the conclusion that they were burying their dead to show a spiritual expression and not because they were simply trying to protect the corpses from predators and scavengers at the time. Which one sounds more feasible to you?

Because they were directly related to humans, who are the only other animals known to bury their dead, and do so for religious reasons. Remember now, religion was invented to explain unknown and violent phenomenon: death, weather, seasons, eclipses, stars, etc... So if they were burying their dead it would make more sense that they were doing so for religious reasons.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

re- when used in latin doesn't just mean "again". It is also used in an intensive form, so that although literally it is again, it really should be translated as "doubly"; which is where the "fast" (i.e. securely, solidly, etc.) comes from. The reason why this is the most accepted etymology is because "to bind fast" is representative of devotion, which is what religion is most often identified with. One devotes oneself or binds oneself to the practice of religion.

I encourage you to read an article by Jonathan Smith on the subject, entitled "Religion, Religions, Religious". If that source doesn't satisfy you, or if you have trouble finding it, I'm sure I will be able to remember many more if I put a little thought into it.

Not true that re- is used as an intensifier. Just check the number of words there are with re- as "again" and re- as intensifier. And I've heard from two graduates in theology (one christian and one atheist) that the most accepted etymology is religare as reunite (reuniting the sacred with the profane).

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Humans are apes. An ape is not an animal, it is a type of animal.

It's either an animal or not, there is no grey area and I've heard it before, you're saying the exact same thing as PhilopsherStoned. You haven't counter my argument showing that humans and Apes has an essential difference which is, once again, Humans are the only species that is spiritually expressive.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

According to you.

Well show me an Ape that is spiritually expressive, otherwise you have nothing.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Also according to you and pretty much just based on your own assumptions.

Thats a fact, unless you can show me any other species that has this ability.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

That's because you don't want to, and so keep changing your definition of what spirituality is.

Spirituality and Spirit are two different things, thus, having two different definitions.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Humans are NOT the only animals who have/had display(ed) are and are NOT the only who buried their dead. Since both of these things would be indicators of culture, and culture is what you say makes humans special, and spiritual, then neanderthals must have been spiritual.

Where are you getting this from? Show the post I made where I said Humans are the only species who has buried their dead.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor
Also, [url

http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterOne/LascauxCave.htm[/url]

Building a scaffolding to draw a picture on the wall of a cave? And you think they are 'lesser' than humans?

You posted a link that reaffirmed what I've been saying. The "Only" cave paintings are indications of hunting or animals in general. Nothing spiritually expressed here. As I said previously. What's spiritual about this?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I have never heard or seen any cave paintings by Neanderthals that showed any indication of them expressing themselves spiritually. I've seen indications of normal activities which included hunting.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Because they were directly related to humans, who are the only other animals known to bury their dead, and do so for religious reasons. Remember now, religion was invented to explain unknown and violent phenomenon: death, weather, seasons, eclipses, stars, etc... So if they were burying their dead it would make more sense that they were doing so for religious reasons.

Cite the area in bold for me to back up your statement.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Humans are made in the image of God, it's in our nature to recognize a higher order of spiritual essence as this mode of reference is embedded within our makeup.

God is made in the image of humans, it's our nature to model and observe this reality from our subjective standpoint as it is the only way we have ever existed and perceived. We think, we create, we give purpose. We're so awesome that only something as awesome as us could've made everything, because we can't imagine it any other way and this is the only way it has to be.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

God is made in the image of humans, it's our nature to model and observe this reality from our subjective standpoint as it is the only way we have ever existed and perceived. We think, we create, we give purpose. We're so awesome that only something as awesome as us could've made everything, because we can't imagine it any other way and this is the only way it has to be.

Thats your subjective standpoint, however a fine-tuned universe tells me that we have designer/creator that is in fact very personable.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Thats your subjective standpoint, however a fine-tuned universe tells me that we have designer/creator that is in fact very personable.

"Fine-tuning" as the reason we exist doesn't in any way imply a creator, let alone something called a personable creator. The only thing it implies is that the universe is the way it is. It's your subjective perception and then projection of human characteristics which creates a personable designer. Never have we directly perceived the universe objectively, or the way it was formed, or the way it gets formed "without designers" so we can't talk about what reality tells us in regards to "creators".

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Thats your subjective standpoint, however a fine-tuned universe tells me that we have designer/creator that is in fact very personable.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

however, as I said over and over again the major distinction between humans and animals is the fact that humans are spiritually expressive and animals are not.

This is back to the beaver argument. Are beavers not animals because they build dams with their teeth? We are an animal that is spiritually expressive. It's an arbitrary distinction that is lacking in all symmetry. Just because an animal does something that no other animal does does not make it not an animal. Think of all the things we do that every other animal does as well.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So you believe that The Neantherdhals were burying the dead for spiritual reasons, tens of thousand of years before the introduction of religions?

I'm with A Roxxor on this. I don't see a reason to bury dead and hence protect the body other than in the belief that it has a spirit/soul/whatever you want to call it. At any rate, as per my above paragraph, it's a side issue relative to the question of if humans are animals or not which is the only issue which I am interested in in this debate. Seeing as you are not getting the point, I'm done with it.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

This is back to the beaver argument. Are beavers not animals because they build dams with their teeth? We are an animal that is spiritually expressive. It's an arbitrary distinction that is lacking in all symmetry. Just because an animal does something that no other animal does does not make it not an animal. Think of all the things we do that every other animal does as well.

However being spiritually expressive is the 'major separation' between humans an animals it confirms the subject matter that "Man" is made in the image of God, This image coincides humans to be spiritually expressive.

Originally Posted by PhilsopherStoned

I'm with A Roxxor on this. I don't see a reason to bury dead and hence protect the body other than in the belief that it has a spirit/soul/whatever you want to call it. At any rate, as per my above paragraph, it's a side issue relative to the question of if humans are animals or not which is the only issue which I am interested in in this debate. Seeing as you are not getting the point, I'm done with it.

You haven't made any points. The only thing you said was "Humans are Apes End of discussion" Like that supposed to suffice for anything. You haven't explained why you think Neantherdhals bury their dead for spiritual reasons. I gave you the most logical reason why, to keep predators away from the corpses. Cave paintings - I'll sweeten the pot for you. Lets go with A Roxxors cave paintings. Any reason why humans couldn't have done it?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

However being spiritually expressive is the 'major separation' between humans an animals it confirms the subject matter that "Man" is made in the image of God, This image coincides humans to be spiritually expressive.

Ok Ne-yo. That argument is so logically compelling that I have no choice but to believe it. What church do I start going to?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Ok Ne-yo. That argument is so logically compelling that I have no choice but to believe it. What church do I start going to?

Not trying to get you to believe anything. I'm just conveying why that statement regarding Humans and Apes are one in the same is completely inaccurate.

Just because humans have different abilities than other animals does not mean we are not animals. If that's what your point was, of course.

That is all I have been trying to point out.