J.P. Moreland believes that sperm cells have immortal souls.

[Jackie]

[SteveII]

Did ANY of you actually listen to it before commenting? Typical Jehanne, mischaracterized the whole thing. I listened to just the Moreland interview--and thought it was interesting and well thought out (as did the interviewer).

There are multiple interviews, long and the edited short.  Just listen to the latter -- Moreland, in response to Kuhn's question, says that he believes that one-celled amoebas have souls.  Ergo, a sperm is much more complex than an amoeba!

I listened to the whole interview. What was the definition of 'soul' that he was using when he said that and what distinction did he make between humans and animals and life? You love to mischaracterize nearly everything about anyone you don't agree with.

[Jackie]

There are multiple interviews, long and the edited short.  Just listen to the latter -- Moreland, in response to Kuhn's question, says that he believes that one-celled amoebas have souls.  Ergo, a sperm is much more complex than an amoeba!

I listened to the whole interview. What was the definition of 'soul' that he was using when he said that and what distinction did he make between humans and animals and life? You love to mischaracterize nearly everything you about anyone you don't agree with.

"You don't believe in souls, so therefore you advocate humans behave like savage animals".......

Nope, that is not what atheists or scientist who accept evolution are claiming.

Our more developed brains and more complex language can, WHEN HUMANS CHOOSE, lead us to be compassionate and caring. Nobody I'd call sane is advocating lawlessness or rape or murder.

But what science is saying is that our behaviors both good and bad stem from prior life. We know from our primate cousins that they also compete in their social structures, they also display acts of kindness within the group but can also be violent to other members or other groups. Nothing in what I just said is advocating humans be savages.

If you can accept that a blade of grass does not have a soul, and is made up of DNA, then what makes you think humans have one? What frightens you so much about "you" being nothing more than your brain in motion? That doesn't frighten me one bit. 

All life is made up of DNA, so if you are not willing to extend the idea of a "soul" to other life, then you are merely cherry picking. I think the simple solution as to why humans claim the existence of "souls" is because they want a fictional "forever" but cant see that it is mere fiction.

Our bigger brains and more complex language are what make humans different, but we are still only one species in evolution but not the most important.

[SteveII]

Did ANY of you actually listen to it before commenting? Typical Jehanne, mischaracterized the whole thing. I listened to just the Moreland interview--and thought it was interesting and well thought out (as did the interviewer).

The soul is "an immaterial substance" he said that with a straight face. Idiot.

That is the definition of 'soul' so were you expecting something else? Also, almost 9 out of 10 people believe is some version of it...so...are all of them 'idiots' and you and your atheist friends are the only non-idiots in the world?

[Jackie]

The soul is "an immaterial substance" he said that with a straight face. Idiot.

That is the definition of 'soul' so were you expecting something else? Also, almost 9 out of 10 people believe is some version of it...so...are all of them 'idiots' and you and your atheist friends are the only non-idiots in the world?

Most of the world thought the world was flat in the past so?

If 9 out of 10 people told you jumping off the top Empire State Building without anything breaking your fall won't hurt you would you still do it?

Most people believe, yea I agree. But funny how the idea of "souls" always look like the societies they come from.

[Jehanne]

There are multiple interviews, long and the edited short.  Just listen to the latter -- Moreland, in response to Kuhn's question, says that he believes that one-celled amoebas have souls.  Ergo, a sperm is much more complex than an amoeba!

I listened to the whole interview. What was the definition of 'soul' that he was using when he said that and what distinction did he make between humans and animals and life? You love to mischaracterize nearly everything about anyone you don't agree with.

His own words were quite clear.  In response to Kuhn's question, Moreland believes that single and multi-cellular organisms have an immaterial aspect to them.  It's borderline animism.

[SteveII]

I listened to the whole interview. What was the definition of 'soul' that he was using when he said that and what distinction did he make between humans and animals and life? You love to mischaracterize nearly everything about anyone you don't agree with.

His own words were quite clear.  In response to Kuhn's question, Moreland believes that single and multi-cellular organisms have an immaterial aspect to them.  It's borderline animism.

Paraphrasing, he said that any life that is greater than the sum of its parts has a least a rudimentary soul. He was also quite clear that he thought only humans have an immortal soul--existing on past the death of its body (so the title of this thread is nothing but made up, unhinged hatred for people you are just not equipped to understand).

[vorlon13]

Maybe the Christers need to slow down making up new shit till they can prove at least a jot or tittle of the heap of crap they already have ??

[vorlon13]

Maybe the Christers need to slow down making up new shit till they can prove at least a jot or tittle of the heap of crap they already have ??

and I'm trying to imagine how to reword that to apply to the Mormons, and words fail me . . . .

[Jehanne]

His own words were quite clear.  In response to Kuhn's question, Moreland believes that single and multi-cellular organisms have an immaterial aspect to them.  It's borderline animism.

Paraphrasing, he said that any life that is greater than the sum of its parts has a least a rudimentary soul. He was also quite clear that he thought only humans have an immortal soul--existing on past the death of its body (so the title of this thread is nothing but made up, unhinged hatred for people you are just not equipped to understand).

He never said that.  He implied that the "souls" of dogs and humans were different, but he never said that a dog's soul does not survive the death of its body.  All of this is adhoc bullshit.  If a dog has a soul and that soul ceases to exist after its death, why not the same with a human?