Did Neanderthals have souls?

[Zzyzx]

.
Many Theists seem intent on distinguishing between humans and "the animals" (as though humans were something other than animals) -- often proclaiming that humans have "souls" (which have yet to be shown to exist outside imagination).

Where along the line did humans acquire "souls?"

Did / do other closely related species have "souls?"

[Zzyzx]

.

Many Theists seem intent on distinguishing between humans and "the animals" (as though humans were something other than animals) -- often proclaiming that humans have "souls" (which have yet to be shown to exist outside imagination).

Where along the line did humans acquire "souls?"

Did / do other closely related species have "souls?"

Since we can't see souls, everything is conjecture.

Not only can we not see "souls" we can find no evidence whatsoever that such things are present in human beings or other animals.

Why propose that such things exist if they cannot be demonstrated to exist? Personal preference? Group-think? Religious proclamation?

Since nothing can be proven I'm going to approach the topic from the perspective of reincarnation.

You are free to speculate or believe as you wish. However, in debate one is expected and required to produce evidence that their proposals are truthful and accurate. Can you provide that?

We are souls and we chose to inhabit a physical body. I believe there are many types of souls and our type have a monopoly on human bodies.

Interesting speculation and opinion. How can anyone interested verify that there is truth in the assertion?

Humans acquired souls when souls chose to inhabit their bodies.

How can this be verified as something more substantial than opinion, fantasy, fiction, folk tale, supposition, conjecture, etc?

Biology will provide all animals with instinct which will allow it to survive regardless of whether it has a soul. Other species have souls if souls chose to inhabit that species.

Is this presented as speculation / opinion or as truthful and accurate verifiable information?

[Goat]

In the Jewish faith, the concept of the soul has developed. There are three words that are talked about that are translated as soul. To keep things simple, let's just address the oldest concept that is found in the Torah, the oldest books. In that book, the soul is most often referred to as 'nefesh', which is often used for breath also. The term 'nefesh behemah' is used for a living being.. and a person is a soul, rather than a person having a soul. Animals are also 'souls' in this earliest concept.

So, at the earliest and most basic traditions, a soul is a living being. A person is a soul, as are living animals. it wasn't until later than philosophical mish mash happened.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 29 by DanieltheDragon]

Digging is what we archaeologists do ....

I assure you I picked one name at random from that list.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Wootah]

Not sure how to respond here. Your arguments are so scattered I am not sure what you are trying to say. On one hand you admit Neanderthals exist on the other hand you try to insinuate there is very little evidence for the existence of other Homo species by using an obscure example of an unidentified skull cap.

Using Cepranensis as an example for a lack of evidence to me seems a little bit on the deceitful side based on the way you presented it. Other confirmed homo species have much more evidence to go by.

If you had used Homo Heidelbergensis for example you would have over 5500 bones to look though at one dig site alone.

[Wootah]

[Replying to DanieltheDragon]

Not sure how to respond here. Your arguments are so scattered I am not sure what you are trying to say. On one hand you admit Neanderthals exist on the other hand you try to insinuate there is very little evidence for the existence of other Homo species by using an obscure example of an unidentified skull cap.

Why do you think my arguments are scattered? How does one even prove that is so such that you are not simply making an insult?

Using Cepranensis as an example for a lack of evidence to me seems a little bit on the deceitful side based on the way you presented it. Other confirmed homo species have much more evidence to go by.

ZZxyz used that as evidence in a long list, I said to you that I picked one name at random and looked it up to see what I could find.

If you had used Homo Heidelbergensis for example you would have over 5500 bones to look though at one dig site alone.

I'll check that example when I get time and respond to it.

Why assume deceit? Is that your default position? Do you think Zzyzx was wrong to include that in his list? Don't you think that is a question you should be asking him?

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 21 by Zzyzx]
Homo cepranensis is a proposed name for a human species, known from only one skull cap discovered in 1994.

It seems like so little actual evidence.

ZZxyz used that as evidence in a long list, I said to you that I picked one name at random and looked it up to see what I could find.

Evidence of existence of some of the Homo sub-species is rather limited -- other sub-species are known from large amounts of physical evidence. So what?

The OP question regards whether they (specifically Neanderthals) have souls, not which ones are best documented.

As an aside, it seems ironic and inconsistent for someone to express concern regarding a specific sub-species citing slight physical evidence but at the same time accept god theories that offer no physical evidence at all.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Evidence of existence of some of the Homo sub-species is rather limited -- other sub-species are known from large amounts of physical evidence. So what?

The OP question regards whether they (specifically Neanderthals) have souls, not which ones are best documented.

You say 'so what', but clearly the 'so what' is you should vet your sources. Lest you get caught out 'elephant hurling'. I'm not the one wanting to derail the OP either.

As an aside, it seems ironic and inconsistent for someone to express concern regarding a specific sub-species citing slight physical evidence but at the same time accept god theories that offer no physical evidence at all.

As an aside it seems ironic and inconsistent that someone that thinks the evidence on their side would use weak examples.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 35 by Wootah]

First I said scattered and I explained why


1. your admission that Homo Neanderthals exist

2. The appearance of trying to insinuate that there is very little evidence of other Homo species


these two points are in conflict with each other hence why I felt it was a scattered argument. This is not an insult just a confused reader. Perhaps the fault is mine or maybe just maybe the point you were trying to make was not clear enough. The last comment you made didn't really help clear things up further. That again could be my fault but I still don't see why you brought up the skull cap to begin with. I mean really on that list you picked probably one of the few examples were there is little evidence a point made clear in the wiki entry.

Why assume deceit? Is that your default position? Do you think Zzyzx was wrong to include that in his list? Don't you think that is a question you should be asking him?

I did not and have not assumed deceit I said the way you presented your statement about the skull cap gave the appearance of deceit because of two points

1. It was a rather obscure discovery, while it does bear some interest it is not the best example of other Homo species that are available. It would be as if I were to discredit heliocentrism by pointing out to a binary star system(which is a rather obscure example of a star system).

2. The scientists and the wikipedia article have made it very clear that while this skull cap does not resemble anything we have to date the jury is still out on whether or not this is indeed a separate homo species.

I assumed you were unaware of these points otherwise you would not have said what you said or presented a case in the manner that you did. I don't think your a deceitful person. We all have our biases and its easy to get swept up in the moment.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 37 by DanieltheDragon]

Also perhaps Zz was wrong to include it on the list. I personally don't find it a very good example of other Homo species.

[ttruscott]

.
Many Theists seem intent on distinguishing between humans and "the animals" (as though humans were something other than animals) -- often proclaiming that humans have "souls" (which have yet to be shown to exist outside imagination).

Where along the line did humans acquire "souls?"

Did / do other closely related species have "souls?"

Within my PCEC we were created as spirits (unbodied but alive and self aware beings) who were put into bodies here on earth...and one definition of soul is such a spirit stuck, locked or whatever, in a body. Separated from the body it is again a spirit. This is a nomenclature thing only.

I do not have any argument pro or con about animals having souls except horses being ridden out of the spirit world into our reality and if horses can live there , that is, these are not just symbolic of something, then I claim dogs must too, but maybe not cats.

Peace, Ted