If evil is directly connected with the human body, would it not be possible to eliminate evil through the means of not reproducing? Would evil not be eliminated, if we, the human race did not continue one, but instead focused on the present without reproducing? (And when I say the end of the human race I do not mean for people to commit suicide.)Â
Eventually, if this did occur , we would all die and the evil which seems so apparently connected with the physical human would become absolete! We would still exist as souls but that is all. We would be existing in peace without the evil or the body.
Or maybe if everyone was Fully enlightened and knew themselves it would make more sense for being to come into this world. But I highly doubt that anyone has fully reached this state!
just give in, not bother and leave it to our souls because life’s not all good? how weak and pathetic a philosophy is that
end of pain, end of suffering, end of life. just leave it to us cuz the way we are going we’ll have wiped ourselves out in the next 10 years max so there wont be a future anyway, so who cares?
your ideas seem very hippy, buddhist or druggy, and like many of those sort of peoples ideas they work in theory but in practise they lack any real substance
I suppose you value the human body quite highly, but what about the soul? Why do you view the soul as the weaker mate? Does it not continue on after the body or do you even believe in this? Is it not weak to feed every desire that your body has? And would strength not be shown when one supresses these urgent desires? Or do you think that there needs to be somesort of balance? And how would this be possible?
In practice these ideas that I have mentioned are highly realistic but only for those who believe in them, while the same can go for those who practice violence and think of the suggestions that I have posted as highly unlikely.It is because they so firmly believe against the possibility of such things that they cannot believe otherwise.
i don’t believe that the soul exists at least in a strictly spiritual/greek bullshit sense of the word.
from a scientific point of view i could claim that the soul is nothing more then the electrical energies of the brain and body and how they relate to each other that continues to exist after death as energy does not die but that is only a theory and like any theory it lacks substance/may fail in practise so therefore i have no evidence, nor reason to believe in the soul.
are you a pacisifst? pascifism in good in theory except it fails when put up against people like hitler, pol pot, idi amin etc. therefore pacifism is not absolute and not pratical like the theories of the soul (i.e. they lack substance out of theory).
i believe in the mind, the will, the body, but not the soul as i have evidence of it’s existence.
Crafedog, you are starting to sound quite, nay, very naive.
On one hand you think you have evidence of the existence of ‘the mind’ and ‘the will’. On the other, you declare there is no such evidence for ‘the soul’.
Regarding ‘will’, did you ever stop to consider the doctrine of determinism. It presents a strong case that ‘will’ does not exist.
Moreover, regarding ‘mind’ and ‘soul’, both are equally vague terms: you mean the ‘brain’ which we DO have evidence of.
Finally, please be less aggressive and more thoughtful in your posts: people who post debatable (even naive) arguments (ironically, like yours) do not wish to be insulted by anyone; they wish to discuss.
okay then so where is your evidence that the soul exists? also personally i believe determinism to be a somewhat interesting if not completely pointless debate (like the notions of the soul and discontinuing reproducing) as you can not fully prove it to be true or false, therefore it is pointless to have a meaningful discussion about it as you will not come to any real answers when debating the notion. also i would like to add i said “the will” not “free will” which in my mind are seperate things especially concerning the notions of determinism.
you can clearly see by my beliefs that i believe things that have factual evidence that makes logical sense to be true, i do not believe in the soul because i have no evidence of its existence. so please tell me what evidence there is for the soul actually existing and you may be able to sway my thinking through rational and logical debate?
also i find it rather strange that you are claiming that i should be less aggressive and naive in my posts when you called me ignorant/naive and did not properly answer my questions (the mind, will etc were not questions but i still have to receive one over the factual existence of the soul). that to me not only counts as an insult/act of aggression but is also a very hypocritical thing for someone to do. if the original poster was offended by my words, then he/she should private message me and i will explain myself/apologise to them should they wish me to do so. the notion of offense should be determined by whom the post was directed at, not someone else and therefore although i appreciate your concerns i would prefer it if you left the issue to me and the original poster.
Please check out the difference between “wrong” and “disagree”.
The “mind” is the functioning of the human brain. Unless the subject under observation is dead, then we do have evidence every single time for this. dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mind
Those ideas have nothing to do with Buddhism. However, they do remind me of some old christian dogma which can also be seen, in principle, in Hinduism. Ie: “You are in your position in life because you suck, now get back to work and maybe things will be better after you die, provided you obey the rules of your betters.”
i claimed that these ideas had some relation to buddhism because it is a typical buddhist believe that evil comes from the body and suffering comes from its desires (also the fact that they are celibate had a mild link to the topic question/concept).
interesting take on religion Adam, coming from an atheist i can honestly say that despite the fact that although what you say seems somewhat crude in context (no offense intended) it still seems to me a very accurate portrayal/view of the numerous religions and their patheitc carrot and stick/heaven and hell philosophy/concept of morality
Am I missing something? When did I mention those words?
A fairer point, although not an entirely coherent one. Although, wait: your definition of the word ‘mind’ is NOT the only one…
Consult the Cambridge Dictionary online (no less)…
Definition
mind (THOUGHTS) [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
1 the part of a person that enables a person to think, feel emotions and be aware of things:
Her mind was full of what had happened the night before, and she just wasn’t concentrating…
Of course I’m telling the truth - you’ve got such a suspicious mind!
I just said the first thing that came into my mind.
I’m not quite clear in my mind about what I’m doing.
I don’t see any reference to the functioning of the brain here! Be more careful with dictionary definitions: one may say one thing- others are at odds from them!This definition, for instance, shows that I was correct to compare mind to soul.
Erm…says…you? It’s good to know someone is aware of why the universe is here…you should publicicse your abilities a little better, though?! And when did I argue that determinism WAS fact?
Adam…I am all open to debate…I enjoy it…but not on grounds where I continually have to re-represent what is being said because of a flagrant lack of effort on the part of who I argue with…
When discussing a subject, to assert that one with an opinion other than your own is “naive”, you are saying they do not understand the matter as well as you. This is presumptuous and arrogant, saying they are wrong because they don’t know as much as you.
I do. It specifically mentions emotions and such.
Says reality. Demonstrated principles of physics show us that the universe is not deterministic. I understand it may take quite some time for the arts students to catch up in these matters.
Here, you recommended determinism as:
When in fact determinism presents nothing of the sort, since it has been shown to be incorrect.
