Dear God, Eve what have you done?

[Esquilax]

From what I saw you said nothing of substance, just empty conjecture. Now if you want me to revisit something specifically just highlight it.

You must not have been paying very close attention, since I repeated a number of the questions I posed the first time around, and you're answering them now. Other than them, I frankly have no interest in retreading old ground just to read your obfuscations of what I asked later.

As mentioned in the artical found in psychology today, the soul is not a physical object, but a word that describes self awareness.

So, are you now saying that evolved man, before Adam and Eve entered their world, were not self aware? Despite having functioning societies and cultures, they weren't self aware?

Or are you trying to bait and switch the magic soul you actually mean, with a less offensive, watered down version?

What you seem to be looking for is scientific proof that a soul exists as you currently understand the existance of a soul. which by all reason and measure of logic is a fools errand.

Well, I guess what I'm asking is, if you're fully admitting that you can't detect the soul using science, how did you detect it? And if you can't detect it in an objectively verifiable way, how could you possibly have been initially justified in accepting your claim to be true?

(But it does support my assertion a few posts back that people like you first come up with a concept and then look for proof to support it rather than honestly gather information and form a conclusion to where ever it leads.)

How is me asking you, openly and in a public forum, for evidence of your claim, in any way indicative of a desire to ignore such evidence against my position that you can provide? Do tell.

I merely reported on the actual content of the link you gave; that I find your evidence unconvincing and only tangentially related to what you're trying to prove isn't a mark of some bias in me. You want me to believe you? Get better proof.

In the meantime, quit your petty obfuscations.

In the above mentioned artical the soul is identified as a catch all term for self awareness, it even goes as far as seperating itself from the 'spiritual' defination.. But it seems you did not read the whole artical. I guess I am not the only one guilty of that.

No, that was me being charitable, Drich, because I can't imagine you seriously thought that the idea that the soul means self awareness actually aids the position you're espousing, for the reasons I detailed above when you first brought this up. I gave you more credit than you evidently deserved.

If you're seriously saying that mankind wasn't self aware before Adam and Eve bred a soul into the gene pool, I'd remind you that cows are self aware, and yet you're asking us to believe that an entire civilization could have been erected by a race of people who weren't sentient?

When the bible identified Adam "as being a living soul." and through the oral tradition of the Jews that says the soul of man is given by the father, and the body or blood of man is given by the mother.

Do you still not understand how little weight I put in old Jewish mythology? Besides, I was asking for proof of your interbreeding claim, not a fictional story to confirm your idea of spirit genealogy.

is it your contention that religion=souls?
I did not say man was a blank slate, I said man was little more than a troop of monkeys. meaning they were without a soul, not without minds of their own.

So now you seem to be going back on your "the soul is self awareness" claim from earlier.

Where he built the city of Enoch... Do you know the difference between a city and a house? do you know the difference between a house and a villiage, a village and a town, and town and a city? aside from the size and shape of the buildings POPULATION is what seperates these communities.

He may have built a city, but that doesn't justify your claim that there were already people there to inhabit it; that's an unjustified assumption to cover for the bible, a book that's not exactly lacking in nonsensical events. Perhaps he was building it for future generations.

So it is you estimation that in 6000 years of telling and retelling this story no one has caught this error aside from you and your peers?

No, it's my estimation that the book stubbornly hasn't changed in that length of time because it hasn't needed to; it's hardly been lacking for idiotic defenders willing to call even the most egregious of errors inerrant, now has it?

They are only responsiable for what they understand.

But you got it right, despite offering no mechanism through which that can be confirmed, eh?

I believe because I stood before Christ, and went though judgement, and for a brief moment felt the love and completeness that welcomed all who believe. I want to experience that love and completeness for eternity.

That's why I believe god is a psychotropic drug, then.

that wasn't the question now was it?

I don't really understand why you think the second sentence of my response wasn't an answer to your question.