Gumble died at about 11.40 (BST) last night, but the news is better today. The remaining pups are feeding well, every 3 hours, round the clock, with a bit extra attention for the little girl (Gertrude).

I apologise to Rev if all this dog talk has killed this thread when it still a long way off the 5,000,000.

I had been wondering about the little puppies. It seems that the three will make it-- though I was sad to hear about little Gumble, (such a great name for a pug). How is the mum? She should be OK now the pups are born shouldn't she?

All the best to the little family, and don't worry about the Rev, we are bumping up his total nicely.

Not to worry and no need to apologize, Bill. Anything that touches on the way we relate to and react to one another, when any of us is called on to face life and death issues, of any kind, is imporant to anyone who really thinks about what it means to be religious--living with an attitude that is caring of all others and life in all its forms.

Non-religious folk can be expected to excuse themselves from facing life and death situations and having any issues or feelings.

Athiests die.
Believers move from one state to another.
What happens to agnostics?

Everyone has beliefs..even those who believe they don't.

OK, religious believers......

The question stands.

Bill, the agnostics suspect they might be dead but they want proof

Nice one, Rede; I can almost believe that.

Three pups still going getting stronger.

"I will bet there are fewer agnostic theists than there are gnostic atheists".

There--- doesn't that sound impressive! Unfortunately I did not write it originally, but I was impressed enough to jot it down, but without attribution. It took me a while to find it again --and post it!




I was so glad to hear the three amigos are still well.

Your honesty overwhelms me!

I did struggle with my conscience--- but I am an honest atheist!

Conscience--an interesting concept, isn't it?

Ellis, or anyone: In your opinion, what is the nature and function of what we call the conscience? (From Latin for with + know) What do we really mean when we say: I am a conscious person and I have a conscience? Without a conscience, can we be truly human?

What does it mean to be human? To be able to define ones conscience and consciousness?

Then what?

Who's definition or what definition should confine the human to an idea.

Depends who you ask, doesn't it. Put another way, "What does being human mean to you?". To me, it means being a particular kind of animal with characteristics, experiences and behavior determined by the composition and physics of that animal and the environment. That seems to be a factual foundation. The rest is philosophy and metaphysics, is it not?

So--- Is a conscience merely a behavioural construct? Would it differ in different cultural environments?

Perhaps the conscience is an indication of refined guilt.

Has an animal (other than human) been recorded as having a developed conscience? A chimp perhaps? I ask because rede refers to a "certain kind of animal". Is it only the human kind? Does it define us as "human"?

Conscience is at least partly a product of reasoning, inasmuch as it requires recognition of the salient interactive phenomena and anticipation of their consequences; but it seems plain enough that conscience is brought into play at levels determined by the specific and unique combination of internal and external environments of the individual. Culture is, of course, a significant factor in the nature of the environment.

Given that reason is a prerequisite for conscience, I would say that any life form capable of sufficient reasoning power has potential for conscience. It may be said that our comparatively remarkable ability to reason defines us as human, but while that's probably be true on Earth, ET might (reasonably) argue the point.

I THINK OF MYSELF AS A SOMA, PSYCHE, PNEUMA BEING
Without preaching at people, or being dogmatic, I think of myself as a complex integration of soma (physical), psyche (mental) and pneuma (spiritual) factors. For better or for worse, I am a pneuma-psychosomatic being, who happens to have a psyche (an animal-like mind) and a soma (an animal-like body).

BTW, IMO, being a physically strong, a mentally well-educated a spiritually-aware and human-like being, full of willpower would not make me, automatically, a moral, ethical, loving, good and humane person. Quite the opposite: It could make me all the more dangerous and socially destructive. Think of the large number of well-educated and sophisticated people who constituted the Nazi Party of the 1930's. Currently, think of many modern advocates of terrorism.

But without the pneuma factor I would have no conscious awareness of my unique self-hood--of my personal individuality and would unlikely be prepared to make any changes needed. I would not not be able to say: I am, therefore I have the willpower to choose to be what I ought, or not not, to be. With a basic pneuma I am at least prepared to say: I was, I am and here is what I will to be. Therefore, I choose to think, to learn, to understand, to know, to take action and get things done.

Rev. I read all these words that you and others post, then I have to ask myself if you really posted them, or if they are all inventions of my mind. Samuel Johnson's stone kicking doesn't convince me. How can I know?

Obviously.

To be all that can be perceived within human characteristics, past present and future, and in every aspect of multidmensional possibilities of physical realities in every universe.

Well if philosophy and metaphysics is dependent upon the environment then any relationship to understanding of being human, or human philosophy and metaphysics, is going to be contained in a relative belief.


Absolutely


Guilt would have to be a construct, taught to the individual, in order for it to be within ones conscience. Lord knows Religion bases all of morality upon guilt, and the recognition of what one should feel guilty for.

An animal of non-human sort may have a completely different relationship with the world because it may not build it's relationships upon beliefs in good and evil.
For example to kill may be inherent where the need for food arises to a carnivore, and both animals may have a different idea of mortality and their relationship with killing and being killed for food.
Man creates beliefs from fear, Animals respond to conditioning but do not teach belief systems to each other or share belief systems like humans do. You don't see forest animals creating a political system to organize the forest according to authority and power and to worship and believe in separation of states of being by moral authority.


Said another way, a person of belief, with an ego which identifies itself as having boundaries capable of preaching personal belief, like any other ego that identifies itself as being human.

Boy Howdy...



You mean without an ego and belief you wouldn't idolize your reality and belief as ideal, nor be able to make comparisons based on your personal beliefs in good and evil, or create a conscience relative to what is good for you or anyone else even tho it conflicts with others who have similar ideas about themselves but are different when it comes to being human and idolizing good and evil?

It would seem our humanity allows us to base our pneuma factor on different ideals, and to preach a metaphysical and philosophical reality that includes both prejudice and judgment. It would seem that free will allows us to pick and choose our humanity and press upon others our changing beliefs.


Now we are getting somewhere.
Perhaps the Reverend doesn't know either since he follows most of his authoritative reasoning with the quotes of others to strengthen his own resolve.

Who would he be, if he didn't have all of the educational authority behind his resolve. Would he have thought any of his current beliefs into his pneumatic idolatry if he hadn't read so may books and collected all those thoughts into belief?

Perhaps being human is to accept the programming of the authoritative reference to animal behavior, and evolution of superiority in self identification