I am also somewhat religious, but I don't really see them as such. We eat them or we make them as pet because we need to do it. We kill people or befriend them because we feel doing it to them.

To me, every organic being has soul, but it doesn't mean it is OK to treat all of them below us. We are the only truly intelligent being in this planet capable of building civilisation. Does this mean that we could do anything? No, we have responsibilities.

To whom? To ourselves. If we harvest all the resources today, what could we have tomorrow? If I don't take a shower/bath, would I be free of potentially harmful bacterias? If I post in this thread, would that mean I am obliged to hear others' opinion and defend mine, or try to accomodate with other's opinion?

because science has become atheistic/agnostic/naturalistic in its outlook. according to science souls dont exist or are either redefined as emotion (something naturalistic).

We are animals too. They have nervous systems just like we do.

That still wouldn't explain the companion Mr. Gutsy deciding to follow you based on your Karma.

There is no wrong way to play the game. Some players joined Caesar's Legion, after all. As to the synths, I'll take the game as it's presented and make my decisions accordingly. While I would probably be anti-synth in the real world, I don't necessarily translate that to fictional universes. Data is probably my favorite Star Trek character.

I don't know enough about synths in the context of Fallout fiction to have a stance on them yet.

Yes, technically, we are animals too.

Yet, how we perceive ourselves is up to ourselves.

I am Shanbalileh. I am a human. Am I an animal? Am I a superior being? Am I an illusion? Am I intelligent? It's all up to me, and so does everybody to perceive themselves.

That's because souls and gods have no proof supporting their existence.

Science is atheistic yes. But that doesn't mean they are anti-theistic. They have no proof supporting God's existence, nor do they have proof disproving His or Her existence. That's why religious things are called SUPERNATURAL. It is beyond the natural world. In the natural world there is proof showing it's existence. You can feel it, see it, hear it, smell it, taste it. Thus religion, gods and souls included, is supernatural and have no place in science.

I thought we were talking about Cerberus? Maybe that other one has achieved sentience? Who knows. Tis a mystery.

Point that I was driving at is that your entire point rests on faith, which is fine. For you. But not others. Cuz it can't be disproved. And you don't have to prove anything either beyond saying 'I believe.' It's pointless arguing with someone whose argument is rooted in faith sooooo... ciao.

Danddolo, I am religious (well, maybe more spiritual than religious but anyway) too, but the fact remains that all I have is my faith.

yeah i guess youre right.

Supernatural is another term for those phenomenons that we couldn't explain with today's science.

Will we be able someday to unlock the truth about them, through science? Could we someday prove that they exist or doesn't exist?

Yes.

Is it wise to call them non-existent?

I don't know.

Bear in mind that human flight was considered to be almost supernatural in our early ages.

Science and reason are the tools that we have to unlock the mysteries of this universe and this life. Yet, are we to disregard the supernatural?

The supernatural is not to be disregarded. It is to be investigated and be rationalised.

How?

Through reason and logic, of course. Religion is more of a moral guidance. It is not merely a fairy tale. Is "you shall not kill your kin" a fairy tale? No. Most religious thing could be written off by some as... Artistic license. But in them, you could find basic moral values that are implanted in almost all religion.

Do you have to follow them?

It is up to you.

Personally, I don't like the direction of this discussion is going, because morality is also intertwined with religious belief. I know sooner or later religion/irreligion will be involved. To me, being irreligious/religious is subjective. It is your own right to believe what you believe. It is your own right to disbelieve what you disbelieve.

You can't quantify a soul, but being human is a lot more than just being skin and flesh and blood and bones. We have developed for millenia as a species, evolved, changed, invented, created and one of our creations are robots. Humans can procreate by natural means, it's inherent to our species as any other biological life form. Do we have a soul? Who knows. Regardless, robots are robots and humans are humans. Just because you put a monkey in a suit and give it a day job, doesn't make it human (even if it does the job better than a human).

So what does being human mean? If we found alien life that is sentient would it also be "human"?

Robots can make other robots. That would be a form of reproduction, no?

One can only be sure that one's own mind exists. Therefore if something or someone else seems to be or claims to be sentient, the only logical thing to do is give them the benefit of the doubt in my mind.

A machine does not have a soul. You clearly show that you dont understand the concept of a soul

Just out of curiosity, if promotion time swung around who should get bumped up? The human because he's human or the monkey for doing a better job?

Depends on how you measure qualification for the new position? Can monkeys think "outside the box"? Can they empathize and lead others?

No, aliens would be aliens (by our terminology, but they probably call themselves something else). I'm assuming we're talking a biological life form? Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) is the only surviving specimen of the human race. Everything else is something else.

Robots can build robots, just like humans can build robots. But robots cannot reproduce in a biological manner and they can never be Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Then what, pray tell, is a soul?

Saying "UR DUM" means nothing to me. Tell me why I do not know what I'm talking about. Be sure not to dip into supernatural or the un-prov/disprovable.

Did you ever read Lost Symbol by Dan Brown? Not a great piece of work or anything, but it makes a creepy point of the human soul and actually manages to quantify it, which is spooky.

Yes, from what we've seen these monkeys are functionally human. Very hirsute perhaps but human in their cogitation.

Your wording earlier suggested the belief that Mr. Gutsies were incapable of achieving sentience, likening them to your PC, a machine that doesn't actually have any intelligence and merely executes programs. That's why I pointed out both of these particular models, as they seem to both display a level of intelligence and will of their own.

And animals are nothing but biological machines.

We even work with electricity too.

I'm not up to speed on my monkey research, but I'd think they'd run into a language barrier at some point =)

Low level production jobs is one thing, communication, sales, management might be another.

I'd say that's a philosophical question. I'm not religious, but I still think we're a little bit more than that.

"I find it elevating and exhilarating to discover that we live in a universe that permits the evolution of molecular machines as intricate and subtle as we."

--Carl Sagan