posted
Gah, I hate the thread title change, it's confusing when you're looking for a short title with only two words in it.
Picking your nose is a human trait which is neither humanising nor de-humanising. (If that's a word.) Caring for children is a human trait which is humanising, even though it's not unique to humans. Genocidal killings is a human trait, again not unique to humans, which is de-humanising. And religious belief is a human trait which is de-humanising, though to a smaller degree than genocide.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Umm. We're working with a fairly and fully subjective declaration when we're saying that religious belief is dehumanizing. Doubly so if we are declaring that it is a purposeful intent on the part of the believer to be less than human.
But, of course, it's only why I found the original statement to be errant or substanceless.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men, that was just... inane and unnecessary. I'm an atheist, but religion isn't more or less evil than any other human institution. Get over it already.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I doubt I would act very differently at all to anyone that still fell under that definition - the question would be would the boundaries of the definition change. But I'd have to think about this for a long time, and I'm not sure even then I'd be capable of answering accurately.
Fair enough. However, your viewpoint is interesting enough that I do await your response at your earliest, um, convenience for lack of a better word.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, I haven't forgotten about my promised posts, just FYI.
And KoM, I prefer the shorter title too (and the joke has run its course now anyway. I'll revert back to the original title.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cool. I have an idea of the direction you'll go, and am curious to see what you have to say as it seems that it might have some relevance to my conception of morality/religion.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
(I thought the longer title was funny, and I will mourn its passing with large, soft, wet tears, but so it goes. Even titles must pass. )
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: BlackBlade, I'm reposting this, just in case you didn't see it:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... I do believe all animals and plants have souls, but I am not sure if bacteria do.
I see the moles as a chemical process of a biological nature. Similar to bacteria or viruses, but I tend to side on the "unliving" end up the spectrum for those things. ... I do not think a cluster of cells that even reproduces by itself is a living entity.
So, by your definition of "living," something must have a soul in order to be alive? And so, for example, a daffodil plant counts as alive because it has a soul?
(Not mocking, not trying to trip you up, just trying to understand. )
I saw this and my previous post was partially written to respond to it, but I confess I am not sure if I myself have a precise answer. As far as I am certain, anything that possesses a soul could accurately be called alive. The extent of things that possess souls is an answer I do not have.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
