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
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