So that doesn't make me an idiot. I'm not alone in my belief that human evolution may not be the case. There are plenty of very smart people who don't believe in human evolution. Your statement makes you sound rude, arrogant, and unwilling to have civil discourse.
I was polite to you and never resorted to calling you names even though I disagree with you. If you are able to present your views without name calling then we can continue. If not, then tell me now and we can be done.
Oh purleease, get over yourself. When it comes down to human evolution, you and all these "very smart people" are idiots. I'm also an idiot about a plethora of things. I'm an idiot with regards to rocket science, with regards to electronics. Jeez, I'm even an idiot with regards to putting the washing machine on. If you can't handle being pulled up for being idiotic about a specific topic, and hide behind the typical, "oh you're just rude and can't have a civil discussion" tosh, then that's your beef. You should take the positives from being called stupid or idiotic, as it makes you reevaluate your current position.
I personally encourage being called out for it, and have no problem with calling others out for it either. I will not be covering you with fluffiness and lightness in order to appease your sensitivities. I would rather be honest with you.
It sounds like a lot of your objections are based on a misunderstanding of what I was saying.
I never said that there is human life without a soul. You were suggesting that human life cannot exist without a soul to animate it. I don't believe that is ever the case for human beings. I base my belief on what the bible says, that God breathed life into Adam in the garden. I take that to mean more than just a breath of O2 followed by a heartbeat. I say that because the bible also speaks over and over about life after death.
Well I asked you a series of questions in my previous post so that you could clarify your position to aid understanding and perhaps make you think deeper about the position you hold, but you've not bothered to even attempt answering them.... and then
have the gall to say I misunderstand you. I find your complete ignorant dismissal of civilly asked questions, and to cut out a vast amount of my post in your response, to be ruder than the "brutality" of being called an idiot.
Anyway, I'm still misunderstanding what you are saying here, as you appear contradictory as you've strewn what you've said with a double negative. You're now saying that you don't believe that it's ever the case that humans can't exist without a soul to animate it, which means you think that humans can exist without a soul, so therefore I was right to say that humans in this world currently have two lives? I think it would be better to just answer yes or no to the question of whether humans can be alive with just a body and no soul. So...?
Then there is again the question of why you would base your beliefs on what the bible says. It holds authority and is reliable because....... "it's god's word"? And you can come to that conclusion by doing what exactly?
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Kssssssssssshhhhh <white noise
As far as animals go. What I meant by "Soulish" qualities is that some animals can relate to human beings better than others. It doesn't mean soul in the context that animals have eternal life. So don't read more into that statement. I don't know that the bible teaches anything about animals having souls like humans or an "analog" version of a soul.
Relate better in what way? I'm guessing it's to the qualities you regard as soul dependent, rather than say, for example, the ability to digest food. I only say this because, you see, I can get on fine with my life without a dog, but remove the bacteria from my gut and I'm screwed.
Perhaps you could also make a list of these soul qualities and explain, with evidence, why these qualities can't be a product of the nature you believe your god created.
Regardless, "nature alone" doesn't do anything without the Creator.
That's your assertion. Do you have any evidence that nature can't do anything (which would include existing) without a creator, or are you just basing this solely on your incredulity?
So I don't buy into the nature idea as if nature has a mind or a will to create something. That is ridiculous to me, and in a negative way points me away from atheism to begin with. It just goes against my common sense that a mindless, faceless, invisible quality that many people dub as "nature", can create things and produce the physical complexity that we can observe in our world, without an intelligent force behind it. Sounds an awful lot like belief of something greater than ourselves like we find in religion. If I choose religion, then I will call it that. Since I do, then I choose Christianity for the reasons stated it the beginning of this thread.
Well we're back here again at your inability to envisage complexity arising without intelligence, yet you simultaneously believe that something that's simple in comparison, the soul, is also in need of an intelligence in order to exist - and the problem here is that this intelligence is also a soul. So what created god?