Can a person have two souls?
Levy Oates
separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began to form
embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or twins
would result. However in the case of the people in question the two embryos
fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
Now in Christian doctrine (or at least, in Catholic doctrine) the soul is
created at the point of conception. As two fertilised eggs were present then
that means two souls - right? So which soul now inhabits the body of the grown
individual?
For an atheist, such as myself, this is merely a curious and fascinating piece
of science, but it seems to me that it creates a dilemma of sorts for
Christians. Neither embryo has died. Yet there is only one conscious, living
human being. There is only one person making choices, sometimes presumably
between good and evil choices. How can one consciousness dictate the fate of two
souls?
I don't see how it is possible to make an authoritative pronouncement on this
from a Christian point of view, but I would be interested to see the discussion
that ensues.
Thinking about subjects like this can have a profound impact on all of us. It
could affect the Christian views of embryos, at what point embryos should be
called human beings and the point at which they should be afforded the
protection of the law. Any change in Christian thinking would have implications
for public policy on stem cell research, fertility treatment, abortion etc.
I'm cross posting this to:
alt.atheism, (home)
alt.religion.christian, and
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
I'll probably only look out for replies in the alt.atheism group though. So if
the Christians want to carry out a conversation behind my back - then you know
what to do :)
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
Richard Smol
> Last week's New Scientist reported on several people who's body contains two
> separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began to form
> embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or twins
> would result. However in the case of the people in question the two embryos
> fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
You're talking about chimeras. Finding a human chimera really is
quite rare.
> Now in Christian doctrine (or at least, in Catholic doctrine) the soul is
> created at the point of conception. As two fertilised eggs were present then
> that means two souls - right? So which soul now inhabits the body of the grown
> individual?
>
> For an atheist, such as myself, this is merely a curious and fascinating piece
> of science, but it seems to me that it creates a dilemma of sorts for
> Christians.
This is by far not the only dilemma for theistic religionists. The mere
fact that they can't even provide any shred of evidence for the existence
of their god(s) already is a very big one. I am sure they will find some
sort of cheap cop out for this one, because that is what they usually do,
with or without a lot of pseudo-philosphical broohaha.
RS
RS
MarkA
Clearly, you are talking about "quantum theology" here. The two souls in
question exist simultaneously in a superposition of two eigenfunctions.
When God looks at it, one soul disappears.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Levy Oates
>Clearly, you are talking about "quantum theology" here. The two souls in
>question exist simultaneously in a superposition of two eigenfunctions.
>When God looks at it, one soul disappears.
Or, according to the many worlds interpretation, perhaps one soul inhabits this
universe and another soul inhabits a parallel one :)
>still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all [alike]
I remember that! I used to play it on a PDP 11/70.
JPG
>On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:25:02 GMT, "MarkA" <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:
>
>>Clearly, you are talking about "quantum theology" here. The two souls in
>>question exist simultaneously in a superposition of two eigenfunctions.
>>When God looks at it, one soul disappears.
>
>Or, according to the many worlds interpretation, perhaps one soul inhabits this
>universe and another soul inhabits a parallel one :)
>
>>still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all [alike]
>
>I remember that! I used to play it on a PDP 11/70.
And still available as a free download - search for "Adventure"
JPG
Shan
two brain cells.
Despite Catholic insistence that the soul is created at the point when
the cell is fertilized, there are some problems. Conception requires
that the egg does not get flushed out and that it sticks to the womb
to grow. In other words, there are many automatic or natural
"abortions" that happen every time a sperm fertilizes an egg but the
egg gets flushed out for reasons that relate to physics and not
biology.
Now, what happens when the egg splits but instead of forming one fetus
it forms identical twins? Does the soul split also? Yes? No? may?
For the soul, in my view, to become a "viable" (if I could use the
expression) soul, the body needs to be viable also. Biblically, the
fictional story of creating man says that "Adam became a living soul."
In other words, a human being does not become a living soul unless he
has a viable body, in the Biblical sense.
So, to respond to your question, as a Catholic (many times called
heretic at that), I believe that in the case of identical twins,
because their bodies and specifically their BRAINS develop separately
they have separate souls (including con-joined twins). However, in
the case of the case of identical twins where one develops into a
viable fetus while the other does not develop a viable body and/or is
con-joined in an non-viable ambiguous growth on the other, one has a
soul the other has nothing.
Regarding DNA, too much is made up of DNA and its importance in
defining who we are. Gender studies came to turn the tables on
established conventions regarding this subject. Although we thought
XX produced women and XY produced men, now we know that neither of
these are real identifiers of gender and not even genitals. But that
is not the subject you are interested in discussing, so I'll let it
go. I am not a geneticist and I cannot claim to know all my facts
here but I know that some babies are born with abnormal sets of
Chromosomes. This may happen, as you said because two embryos (I am
taking your word at that) that eventually produced abnormal number of
Chromosomes or for some other genetic reason the case may have
happened.
In both the cases mentioned above, I am of the opinion that since
there were no viable bodies to contain two "viable" souls, there is
only one soul.
As an Atheist, I should hope you're not going to find this funny but
herewith I gave you my opinion as a non-conventional Catholic and I
would be interested in your thoughts.
Shan
Levy Oates <levy_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<49porvk00sbh8uicn...@4ax.com>...
€ R.L. Measures
<levy_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Last week's New Scientist reported on several people who's body contains two
> separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began to form
> embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or twins
> would result. However in the case of the people in question the two embryos
> fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
>
>...
** I have two, A right one and a left one, both are size 9E.
--
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap
Blast Femur
<71bd538c.03112...@posting.google.com>:
>You post is interesting but it will make many fundies trip over their
>two brain cells.
>
>Despite Catholic insistence that the soul is created at the point when
>the cell is fertilized, there are some problems. Conception requires
>that the egg does not get flushed out and that it sticks to the womb
>to grow. In other words, there are many automatic or natural
>"abortions" that happen every time a sperm fertilizes an egg but the
>egg gets flushed out for reasons that relate to physics and not
>biology.
>
>Now, what happens when the egg splits but instead of forming one fetus
>it forms identical twins? Does the soul split also? Yes? No? may?
>For the soul, in my view, to become a "viable" (if I could use the
>expression) soul, the body needs to be viable also. Biblically, the
>fictional story of creating man says that "Adam became a living soul."
> In other words, a human being does not become a living soul unless he
>has a viable body, in the Biblical sense.
Interesting thought, one I never before came up with myself, for sure.
I'll add my two cents.
One of the many atheist standpoints on this "soul granting at conception"
argument is the possibility of a miscarriage, or even death during or
shortly after birth. When you add the concept of godly omniscience, one
begins to wonder (if one can surpass the "thou shalt not wonder" clause for
a moment) why an all-loving god would grant a soul to a conceived child
when he knows the child will die somewhere along the line, and not having
the chance to be baptized in christ (or whatever the terminology is), be
cast irreversably into the fires of hell.
--
Blast Femur
______________
"A long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided
it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of
years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and
pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine
Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it
seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if
every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and fuck
up Your Plan?"
-- George Carlin (NYC, 2/6/99)
Mekkala
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:71bd538c.03112...@posting.google.com:
> Although we thought
> XX produced women and XY produced men, now we know that neither of
> these are real identifiers of gender and not even genitals.
Uhhh... since when do we "know" this? Last I checked, current genetics
theory still has it that XX chromosomes produce women and XY chromosomes
produce men.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
Mekkala
his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
> In article <Xns94396DB4...@199.45.49.11>,
> Mekkala <joremovedath...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20 Nov 2003, shank...@yahoo.com (Shan) screwed up his face,
>> groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
>> news:71bd538c.03112...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > Although we thought
>> > XX produced women and XY produced men, now we know that neither of
>> > these are real identifiers of gender and not even genitals.
>>
>> Uhhh... since when do we "know" this? Last I checked, current
>> genetics theory still has it that XX chromosomes produce women and XY
>> chromosomes produce men.
>
> It's possible to be an XX male or an XY female. There is a critical
> gene on the Y which determines whether the fetus becomes male. If this
> gene is absent or damaged, the fetus becomes female even if the rest
> of the Y is present. Occasionally, this gene will get copied onto an X
> chromosome leading to an XX male.
>
Nevertheless, in general, the Y chromosome produces a male fetus and lack
of that chromosome produces a female. Shan seems to think the Y chromosome
has nothing to do with it. Just because genetic errors can cause
exceptions doesn't mean that the Y chromosome is meaningless with regard to
gender.
Levy Oates
>Now, what happens when the egg splits but instead of forming one fetus
>it forms identical twins? Does the soul split also? Yes? No? may?
>For the soul, in my view, to become a "viable" (if I could use the
>expression) soul, the body needs to be viable also. Biblically, the
>fictional story of creating man says that "Adam became a living soul."
> In other words, a human being does not become a living soul unless he
>has a viable body, in the Biblical sense.
A *very* good point. This is such a common occurrence, surely the RCC must have
a well defined doctrine for this? I like yout idea of a "viable" soul, but
wouldn't this also call into question the RCC's views on abortion if it was
widely adopted?
>In both the cases mentioned above, I am of the opinion that since
>there were no viable bodies to contain two "viable" souls, there is
>only one soul.
A reasonable answer - but is it one that would be acceptable to most other
Catholics?
You know it would be rather nice if some of the sensible Christians such as
yourself were to pop over from time to time to alt.atheism for a serious
discussion, but since you'd probably get howled down very quickly (and I'll
probably get howled down for even suggesting such a thing) I can understand why
not.
>As an Atheist, I should hope you're not going to find this funny but
>herewith I gave you my opinion as a non-conventional Catholic and I
>would be interested in your thoughts.
Nope - I never laugh when people make the effort to make coherent, reasonable
posts. If the fundies have a go at posting on this thread though then I may well
have a belly laugh at them.
I don't really have any thoughts on the subject myself - since I don't believe
in souls in the first place :)
anne marie hovgaard
> separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began to form
> embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or twins
> would result. However in the case of the people in question the two embryos
> fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
>
> Now in Christian doctrine (or at least, in Catholic doctrine) the soul is
> created at the point of conception. As two fertilised eggs were present then
> that means two souls - right? So which soul now inhabits the body of the grown
> individual?
>
interesting TV documentary about such a child!) - would s/he be
allowed to become a priest?
Shan
Soul granting as a concept by itself requires to be taken
clarification. Should we consider that the soul granting business as
a pick-and-choose matter or as a de facto natural occurrence? I find
it hard to believe that God waits in his heaven to distribute souls
every time a sperm and an egg forum a splitting cell -- this very
statement can render me heretical by many. I believe souls come as a
natural though spiritual process when a viable body is taking shape.
All souls return to God because they are of his breath of life. The
claim that unbaptized fetuses go to Hell is an outrageous one and
which fell by the way side. In the past, I know, Catholic nurses used
to search for fetuses that were miscarried to baptize them and save
them from "Hell." That was an absurd practice and no God believing
person can accept the thought that God sends unbaptized infants or any
infants for that matter to Hell. Some Christian do not agree with me
but I cannot believe in a God who would do that.
Regarding God's omniscience and circumstances, I do not believe that
God knows what I am going to to do this afternoon any more than you,
who do not know me. God knows general things but cannot tell what I
am going to decide because all decisions are my own. If I were a
woman and I wanted to abort my fetus, I certainly can decide to do
that and God can only watch, so to speak.
In the Lord's prayer, we pray "thy will be done on earth...". We do
that because we know that God's will is not done. Our wills are done
because we are free individuals and all the powers of heaven cannot
make us change our mind.
I am sorry; I mixed science and theology while responding to you whom
I suppose is an atheist but the post invited a sort of dialogue over a
subject that included theological thought in a somewhat scientific
medium.
BTW, I believe in theistic evolution and is not a fundie creationist.
Shan
Levy Oates
Ooooo! Good point!
Bill
like a "soul". There is no OBJECTIVE evidence of ANY life after death.
The debate over souls is no more meaningful than the discussion of how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin.
"Levy Oates" <levy_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c9uprvk341ude48jb...@4ax.com...
Blast Femur
>
Your view on spirituality is quite a liberal one. I see such views quite
differently, myself. The bible says what it says, and any "interpretation"
that deviates from it is an attempt to make an acient myth conform with
modern society. I have observed that much of our surroundings and
environment can be explained by science, and as time progresses there are
fewer and fewer places to harbor gods, mysticism and spirituality. I
personally see no need for the supernatural. I cannot, however, call
myself a heretic, for a heretic still has supernatural beliefs. I am an
atheist.
The clergy taught me about souls as a child in Sunday School, but simple
observance of cause and effect will show otherwise. The "soul" cannot
cause intellect, that is a function of our material brain. The "soul"
cannot cause consciousness either, this is an effect of the electro-
chemical reactions constantly ocurring in the brain. If you drink an
alcoholic beverage or take some pain killers (or other drugs) your
consciousness is altered when the substance reaches the brain through the
blood stream. And it is possible to lose consciousness with a blow to the
brain, not the soul. When the brain dies, consciousness ceases, and
memories contained by the chemicals in the brain fade as they begin to
break down and the tissue begins to rot.
If there was a soul, it makes me wonder what afterlife would be like,
without a brain with which to think, and without the electro-chemical
reactions that retain memories. I believe if there is an afterlife, we -
as we are now - wouldn't be aware of it.
MarkA
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:19:19 +0000, Levy Oates <levy_...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:25:02 GMT, "MarkA" <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Clearly, you are talking about "quantum theology" here. The two souls
>>>in question exist simultaneously in a superposition of two
>>>eigenfunctions. When God looks at it, one soul disappears.
>>
>>Or, according to the many worlds interpretation, perhaps one soul
>>inhabits this universe and another soul inhabits a parallel one :)
>>
>>>still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all [alike]
>>
>>I remember that! I used to play it on a PDP 11/70.
>
> And still available as a free download - search for "Adventure"
>
That's the game that got me "hooked" on home computers, way back in the
early 70's: Heathkit H8, with 8K of RAM, and a 4 MHz 8080 CPU.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Lawrence Seib
Good point. Now for something completely different.
The conservatives want to add a constitutional amendment
defining marriage as between a male and a female only
What about hermaphrodites? Then there are the XXY and
YYX people. I don't think that has even been thought about.
Larry
Shan
> On 20 Nov 2003, shank...@yahoo.com (Shan) screwed up his face,
> groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
> news:71bd538c.03112...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Although we thought
> > XX produced women and XY produced men, now we know that neither of
> > these are real identifiers of gender and not even genitals.
>
> Uhhh... since when do we "know" this? Last I checked, current genetics
> theory still has it that XX chromosomes produce women and XY chromosomes
> produce men.
Please check again. I was of the same opinion until I learnt
otherwise. Gender specialists confirm that even when all the
requirements for a specific gender are present, it is not enough
Obviously, over the last few decades and even today, some doctors
insist on performing medical procedures to make child conform to what
the doctor thinks he or she must be. The end result is often a
disaster where the child grows up to be a woman in a man's body or a
man in a woman's body.
Children of ambiguous gender regardless of their chromosomes and/or
their unclear genitalia must be left alone to grow up and decide for
themselves what gender they feel comfortable in.
Shan
Shan
> On 20 Nov 2003, George Tirebiter <Tireb...@netscape.net> screwed up
> his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
> news:Tirebiter7-42F23...@news.fu-berlin.de:
> > It's possible to be an XX male or an XY female. There is a critical
> > gene on the Y which determines whether the fetus becomes male. If this
> > gene is absent or damaged, the fetus becomes female even if the rest
> > of the Y is present. Occasionally, this gene will get copied onto an X
> > chromosome leading to an XX male.
>
> Nevertheless, in general, the Y chromosome produces a male fetus and lack
> of that chromosome produces a female. Shan seems to think the Y chromosome
> has nothing to do with it. Just because genetic errors can cause
> exceptions doesn't mean that the Y chromosome is meaningless with regard to
> gender.
Sorry! Shan does not think of himself but reporting what medical
literature says and I didn't say that the Y chromosome is meaningless
with regard to gender. I was mentioning the exception.
Shan
Shan
> On 20 Nov 2003 06:08:51 -0800, shank...@yahoo.com (Shan) wrote:
>
> >Now, what happens when the egg splits but instead of forming one fetus
> >it forms identical twins? Does the soul split also? Yes? No? may?
> >For the soul, in my view, to become a "viable" (if I could use the
> >expression) soul, the body needs to be viable also. Biblically, the
> >fictional story of creating man says that "Adam became a living soul."
> > In other words, a human being does not become a living soul unless he
> >has a viable body, in the Biblical sense.
>
> A *very* good point. This is such a common occurrence, surely the RCC must have
> a well defined doctrine for this? I like yout idea of a "viable" soul, but
> wouldn't this also call into question the RCC's views on abortion if it was
> widely adopted?
I honestly have no idea whether RCC clerics meddled in that business
too.
> >In both the cases mentioned above, I am of the opinion that since
> >there were no viable bodies to contain two "viable" souls, there is
> >only one soul.
>
> A reasonable answer - but is it one that would be acceptable to most other
> Catholics?
I am sure many liberal Catholics can be persuaded. Getting
conservatives to accept anything has to be first approved by Mr.
RATzinger (Cardinal of what used to be the Inquisition).
> You know it would be rather nice if some of the sensible Christians such as
> yourself were to pop over from time to time to alt.atheism for a serious
> discussion, but since you'd probably get howled down very quickly (and I'll
> probably get howled down for even suggesting such a thing) I can understand why
> not.
I believe that many atheists are fed up with too many Christians who
do not know how to reason nor are they willing to accept anything
which either is literally spelled out (for fundamentalists) or has
been decreed (for non-partyline-crossing Catholics).
I don't know if I would want to face another front of antagonistic
folks. Many fundamentalists and conservative Catholics flame me by
swaying the ax of heresy and excommunication in my face. Being flamed
by atheists too may not be conducive my well being.
If interested in carrying on a discussion, I would be glad to do it
while ignoring "terrorist" posts or simply in another forum where
people don't care.
> >As an Atheist, I should hope you're not going to find this funny but
> >herewith I gave you my opinion as a non-conventional Catholic and I
> >would be interested in your thoughts.
>
> Nope - I never laugh when people make the effort to make coherent, reasonable
> posts. If the fundies have a go at posting on this thread though then I may well
> have a belly laugh at them.
I can assure you that fundies get the bitter end of my tongue, as
well. I believe any group of reasonable people who are sincere or
interested in exchanging opinions or as in an intellectual excerzie
can do that without ulterior motives.
> I don't really have any thoughts on the subject myself - since I don't believe
> in souls in the first place :)
I knew that I was addressing a group of people who think of souls as I
would of sugar-plum fairies. In a way, it makes the discussion weird,
to say the least.
Shan
Shan
This is a very good point. Should hermaphrodites be permitted to
become priests in the RCC? I'd say yes and, of course, I would say
yes to permitting women to become priests or priestesses.
The RCC gender issue that forbids women from the priesthood is absurd.
This is not the place to discuss it but male and female are purely
biological states of being for the purpose of reproduction. They are
not spiritual in any way. Priests are not supposed to be men in the
biological sense of reproduction therefore they just as well be
asexual.
Shan
Blast Femur
news:75ab6396.0311...@posting.google.com:
This is bullshit, of course. It's religious politicians asserting their
goody-two-shoes religious morals on the rest of society. Perhaps they
are trying to preserve a familial structure in the afterlife, but there
are two problems with that.
1) There is a heaven and a hell (or so they believe) and their god will
sort it out.
2) Afterlife is nothing but wishful thinking.
My old high school girlfriend is now a lesbian. She survived two bad
hetero marriages, and is now in a happy marital relation with another
woman. They went to the beach one Saturday afternoon and said their vows
with the surf as their witness. It works for me, what's the friggin'
difference?
>
> What about hermaphrodites? Then there are the XXY and
> YYX people. I don't think that has even been thought about.
Not even by myself...
--
Blast Femur
______________
"We look at the ancient Greeks with their gods on a mountain top throwing
lightning bolts and say, 'Those ancient Greeks. They were so silly. So
primitive and naive. Not like our religions. We have burning bushes
talking to people and guys walking on water. We're ...sophisticated.'"
-Paul Provenza
Diederik
Have you been flamed by the atheists yet? If not, then don't worry
about it. There are a handful of theists whose presence is considered
welcome by the group. If you treat me with respect I will treat you
with respect, and I think the others will as well.
> If interested in carrying on a discussion, I would be glad to do it
> while ignoring "terrorist" posts or simply in another forum where
> people don't care.
>
> > >As an Atheist, I should hope you're not going to find this funny but
> > >herewith I gave you my opinion as a non-conventional Catholic and I
> > >would be interested in your thoughts.
> >
> > Nope - I never laugh when people make the effort to make coherent, reasonable
> > posts. If the fundies have a go at posting on this thread though then I may well
> > have a belly laugh at them.
>
> I can assure you that fundies get the bitter end of my tongue, as
> well. I believe any group of reasonable people who are sincere or
> interested in exchanging opinions or as in an intellectual excerzie
> can do that without ulterior motives.
>
> > I don't really have any thoughts on the subject myself - since I don't believe
> > in souls in the first place :)
>
> I knew that I was addressing a group of people who think of souls as I
> would of sugar-plum fairies. In a way, it makes the discussion weird,
> to say the least.
>
> Shan
What is a soul and what is it's purpose?
Diederik
Mekkala
All right, but you're pointing to exceptions. To *any* biological rule,
there are exceptions. There are exceptions to the rule "humans have
legs", just to name a very simple one. The point is, gender is still
determined by XY for males and XX for females. The fact that there are
exceptions does not invalidate the rule.
Shan
chromosomes even.
The whole post revolves an abnormality of bodily "overlapped" twins
relating to a spiritual question.
If the discussion was about what determines gender, I wouldn't have
brought up the exception.
Shan
Mekkala <joremovedath...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns943A6033...@199.45.49.11>...
Shan
> > I don't know if I would want to face another front of antagonistic
> > folks. Many fundamentalists and conservative Catholics flame me by
> > swaying the ax of heresy and excommunication in my face. Being flamed
> > by atheists too may not be conducive my well being.
>
> Have you been flamed by the atheists yet? If not, then don't worry
> about it. There are a handful of theists whose presence is considered
> welcome by the group. If you treat me with respect I will treat you
> with respect, and I think the others will as well.
I am interested in religious matters. I am not interested in
proselytizing, so I am not sure I want to discuss the question of
Theos and Atheos with those who are not interested in such a subject.
> > I knew that I was addressing a group of people who think of souls as I
> > would of sugar-plum fairies. In a way, it makes the discussion weird,
> > to say the least.
> >
> > Shan
>
> What is a soul and what is it's purpose?
To an atheist, a soul is nothing. To a person who believes it exists,
it is an entity that is non-biological and survives the body after
death.
Shan
the cutest atheist
"Richard Smol" <jaz...@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:2767b33a.03112...@posting.google.com...news:<49porvk00sbh8uicn...@4ax.com>...
> > Last week's New Scientist reported on several people who's body contains
two
> > separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began
to form
> > embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or
twins
> > would result. However in the case of the people in question the two
embryos
> > fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
>
> quite rare.
finding an obvious one of course is quite rare but this NS article showed
that each of us may well be a microchimera, and macrochimeras haven't really
been searched for but rather turned up (because they had different coloured
eyes or the sex organs of both males and females) - and they could well be
as common as twins. I'm sure there's going to be a lot of research on this
topic in the next few years. personally, I can't wait to see the results
<snip>
stoney
<71bd538c.03112...@posting.google.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
1 thess 5 nasb
18 in everything (38) give thanks; for this is God's will for you in
Christ Jesus.
Exodus 4:21
The LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform
before Pharaoh all [Ex 3:20; 11:9, 10] the wonders which I have put in
your power; but [Ex 7:3, 13; 9:12, 35; 10:1, 20, 27; 14:4, 8; Deut 2:30;
Josh 11:20; 1 Sam 6:6; Is 63:17; John 12:40; Rom 9:18] I will harden his
heart so that he will not let the people go.
(Whole Chapter: Exodus 4 In context: Exodus 4:20-22)
Exodus 7:3
"But [Ex 4:21] I will harden Pharaoh's heart that I may [Ex 11:9; Acts
7:36] multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt.
(Whole Chapter: Exodus 7 In context: Exodus 7:2-4)
>In the Lord's prayer, we pray "thy will be done on earth...". We do
>that because we know that God's will is not done. Our wills are done
>because we are free individuals and all the powers of heaven cannot
>make us change our mind.
Sorry, but the Bible says otherwise.
>I am sorry; I mixed science and theology while responding to you whom
>I suppose is an atheist but the post invited a sort of dialogue over a
>subject that included theological thought in a somewhat scientific
>medium.
Not a problem. You indicated how you saw things rather than stating the
items as reality. That makes quite a difference in how folks in aa
respond.
>BTW, I believe in theistic evolution and is not a fundie creationist.
A reasonable point of view.
>Shan
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
stoney
ID: <Xns9439C12407...@216.148.227.77> wrote in alt.atheism;
If you would, please relay my congradulations and best wishes to them
both.
>> What about hermaphrodites? Then there are the XXY and
>> YYX people. I don't think that has even been thought about.
>
>Not even by myself...
stoney
<71bd538c.03112...@posting.google.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>Mekkala <joremovedath...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94396DB4...@199.45.49.11>...
Agreed.
>Shan
stoney
Message ID: <c9uprvk341ude48jb...@4ax.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>On 20 Nov 2003 06:08:51 -0800, shank...@yahoo.com (Shan) wrote:
>
>>Now, what happens when the egg splits but instead of forming one fetus
>>it forms identical twins? Does the soul split also? Yes? No? may?
>>For the soul, in my view, to become a "viable" (if I could use the
>>expression) soul, the body needs to be viable also. Biblically, the
>>fictional story of creating man says that "Adam became a living soul."
>> In other words, a human being does not become a living soul unless he
>>has a viable body, in the Biblical sense.
>
>A *very* good point. This is such a common occurrence, surely the RCC must have
>a well defined doctrine for this? I like yout idea of a "viable" soul, but
>wouldn't this also call into question the RCC's views on abortion if it was
>widely adopted?
>
>>In both the cases mentioned above, I am of the opinion that since
>>there were no viable bodies to contain two "viable" souls, there is
>>only one soul.
>
>A reasonable answer - but is it one that would be acceptable to most other
>Catholics?
>
>You know it would be rather nice if some of the sensible Christians such as
>yourself were to pop over from time to time to alt.atheism for a serious
>discussion, but since you'd probably get howled down very quickly (and I'll
>probably get howled down for even suggesting such a thing) I can understand why
>not.
Nah, sensible Christians are more than welcome. Sensible Christians imo
equals non-proselytizers.
>>As an Atheist, I should hope you're not going to find this funny but
>>herewith I gave you my opinion as a non-conventional Catholic and I
>>would be interested in your thoughts.
>
>Nope - I never laugh when people make the effort to make coherent, reasonable
>posts. If the fundies have a go at posting on this thread though then I may well
>have a belly laugh at them.
Nor do I. I agree that fundies are fair game.
(snip)
stoney
Message ID:
<oF8vb.297681$0v4.18...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>No one has ever come up with OBJECTIVE evidence of the existence of anything
>like a "soul". There is no OBJECTIVE evidence of ANY life after death.
>
>The debate over souls is no more meaningful than the discussion of how many
>angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Discussion not debate. Discussion is merely that. How many discussions
do you have over the course of a dayweek/month that is pretty much
ritual rhetoric? "Armchair quarterbacking" and fantasy leagues come
under the same label as your example.
stoney
<71bd538c.0311...@posting.google.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>Levy Oates <levy_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c9uprvk341ude48jb...@4ax.com>...
>> On 20 Nov 2003 06:08:51 -0800, shank...@yahoo.com (Shan) wrote:
>>
>> >Now, what happens when the egg splits but instead of forming one fetus
>> >it forms identical twins? Does the soul split also? Yes? No? may?
>> >For the soul, in my view, to become a "viable" (if I could use the
>> >expression) soul, the body needs to be viable also. Biblically, the
>> >fictional story of creating man says that "Adam became a living soul."
>> > In other words, a human being does not become a living soul unless he
>> >has a viable body, in the Biblical sense.
>>
>> A *very* good point. This is such a common occurrence, surely the RCC must have
>> a well defined doctrine for this? I like yout idea of a "viable" soul, but
>> wouldn't this also call into question the RCC's views on abortion if it was
>> widely adopted?
>
>I honestly have no idea whether RCC clerics meddled in that business
>too.
Perhaps you could make a private inquiry?
>> >In both the cases mentioned above, I am of the opinion that since
>> >there were no viable bodies to contain two "viable" souls, there is
>> >only one soul.
>>
>> A reasonable answer - but is it one that would be acceptable to most other
>> Catholics?
>
>I am sure many liberal Catholics can be persuaded. Getting
>conservatives to accept anything has to be first approved by Mr.
>RATzinger (Cardinal of what used to be the Inquisition).
From what I've read "the Rat" yearns to bring it back in all its
atrocities.
>> You know it would be rather nice if some of the sensible Christians such as
>> yourself were to pop over from time to time to alt.atheism for a serious
>> discussion, but since you'd probably get howled down very quickly (and I'll
>> probably get howled down for even suggesting such a thing) I can understand why
>> not.
>
>I believe that many atheists are fed up with too many Christians who
>do not know how to reason nor are they willing to accept anything
>which either is literally spelled out (for fundamentalists) or has
>been decreed (for non-partyline-crossing Catholics).
Shan, you've nailed things with a series of "bulls-eyes."
>I don't know if I would want to face another front of antagonistic
>folks. Many fundamentalists and conservative Catholics flame me by
>swaying the ax of heresy and excommunication in my face. Being flamed
>by atheists too may not be conducive my well being.
Point out to them that all sects consider them heretics and are
deserving of excommunication. (There's going to be something of RCC
doctrine they don't adhere to). All other sects consider them to be
heretics deserving of possible torture and excommunication.
>If interested in carrying on a discussion, I would be glad to do it
>while ignoring "terrorist" posts or simply in another forum where
>people don't care.
Shan, to whom you reply to, if you decide to reply, is your business.
This is an open forum for non-proselytizers.
>> >As an Atheist, I should hope you're not going to find this funny but
>> >herewith I gave you my opinion as a non-conventional Catholic and I
>> >would be interested in your thoughts.
>>
>> Nope - I never laugh when people make the effort to make coherent, reasonable
>> posts. If the fundies have a go at posting on this thread though then I may well
>> have a belly laugh at them.
>
>I can assure you that fundies get the bitter end of my tongue, as
>well. I believe any group of reasonable people who are sincere or
>interested in exchanging opinions or as in an intellectual excerzie
>can do that without ulterior motives.
Certanly. I find seeing how someone came to see something to be
interesting whether I agree with their conclusion or not.
>> I don't really have any thoughts on the subject myself - since I don't believe
>> in souls in the first place :)
>
>I knew that I was addressing a group of people who think of souls as I
>would of sugar-plum fairies. In a way, it makes the discussion weird,
>to say the least.
It can be, but that can be the fun part.
>Shan
stoney
<71bd538c.03112...@posting.google.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
I agree, totally. Does that surprise you?
Blast Femur
news:2ku7sv0hif2epln98...@4ax.com:
>>My old high school girlfriend is now a lesbian. She survived two bad
>>hetero marriages, and is now in a happy marital relation with another
>>woman. They went to the beach one Saturday afternoon and said their
>>vows with the surf as their witness. It works for me, what's the
>>friggin' difference?
>
> If you would, please relay my congradulations and best wishes to them
> both.
>
Thanks! She'll be thrilled!
Lawrence Seib
> stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote in
> news:2ku7sv0hif2epln98...@4ax.com:
>
>
> >>My old high school girlfriend is now a lesbian. She survived two bad
> >>hetero marriages, and is now in a happy marital relation with another
> >>woman. They went to the beach one Saturday afternoon and said their
> >>vows with the surf as their witness. It works for me, what's the
> >>friggin' difference?
> >
> > If you would, please relay my congradulations and best wishes to them
> > both.
> >
>
>
> Thanks! She'll be thrilled!
I wish them well to.
But I really want to harp on the hermaphrodite thing.
I do not know how many there are, but what are they supposed
to do if this amendment gets passed. Are they legally forbidden
to marry anyone?
Larry
stoney
ID: <Xns943ECA194E...@216.148.227.77> wrote in alt.atheism;
>stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote in
>news:2ku7sv0hif2epln98...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>>My old high school girlfriend is now a lesbian. She survived two bad
>>>hetero marriages, and is now in a happy marital relation with another
>>>woman. They went to the beach one Saturday afternoon and said their
>>>vows with the surf as their witness. It works for me, what's the
>>>friggin' difference?
>>
>> If you would, please relay my congradulations and best wishes to them
>> both.
>
>Thanks! She'll be thrilled!
Welcome..... :)
James
>Last week's New Scientist reported on several people who's body contains two
>separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began to form
>embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or twins
>would result. However in the case of the people in question the two embryos
>fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
>
>Now in Christian doctrine (or at least, in Catholic doctrine) the soul is
>created at the point of conception. As two fertilised eggs were present then
>that means two souls - right? So which soul now inhabits the body of the grown
>individual?
>
>For an atheist, such as myself, this is merely a curious and fascinating piece
>of science, but it seems to me that it creates a dilemma of sorts for
>Christians. Neither embryo has died. Yet there is only one conscious, living
>human being. There is only one person making choices, sometimes presumably
>between good and evil choices. How can one consciousness dictate the fate of two
>souls?
>
>I don't see how it is possible to make an authoritative pronouncement on this
>from a Christian point of view, but I would be interested to see the discussion
>that ensues.
>
>Thinking about subjects like this can have a profound impact on all of us. It
>could affect the Christian views of embryos, at what point embryos should be
>called human beings and the point at which they should be afforded the
>protection of the law. Any change in Christian thinking would have implications
>for public policy on stem cell research, fertility treatment, abortion etc.
>
>I'm cross posting this to:
> alt.atheism, (home)
> alt.religion.christian, and
> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
>I'll probably only look out for replies in the alt.atheism group though. So if
>the Christians want to carry out a conversation behind my back - then you know
>what to do :)
>
>---------
>
>Archdeacom Levy Oates
>On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
>Basingstoke, England
>http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
Hello,
Sorry to spoil all that deductive reasoning above, but the Bible does
not teach that humans have some 'immortal soul' attached to them
somewhere. Rather, the Bible shows that a "soul" is a person, and
since a person can die, so can a "soul". Here is the Scriptural proof:
The first use of the word "soul" (Hebrew-nephesh) used toward a human
(animals are also called souls- see ), was at Ge 2:7,
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
(KJV)
Notice that when the man started to breath that he wasn't 'given' a
soul, but he BECAME a soul. Thus in this verse, the "soul" is the man
himself.
So souls are not immortal, but can die. Eze 18:4,
"Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the
soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die." (KJV)
I hope this has helped to somewhat clear up what the BIBLE says about
a "soul". What those professing to be 'Christian' in the churches wish
to teach about a soul is up to them. What the Bible teaches about it
is what is the final authority on true Christian doctrine. (Joh 17:17)
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the only authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
Shan
> The first use of the word "soul" (Hebrew-nephesh) used toward a human
> (animals are also called souls- see ), was at Ge 2:7,
You came late to the discussion and should have read the various
comments.
Animals have souls also.
> "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
> into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
> (KJV)
KJV is not an acceptable translation to begin with.
What did God breath into his nostrils? Nothing? God does not breath
air or else He would die. Did you know that?
Read a better translation of the Bible and read clearly what it says
about humans returning to the dust of the earth and the SOUL back to
its maker.
If the soul was nothing, nothing needs to return.
You must be a loony Adventist or some of the fringe loony Protestants.
Shan
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>I hope this has helped to somewhat clear up what the BIBLE says about
>a "soul". What those professing to be 'Christian' in the churches wish
>to teach about a soul is up to them. What the Bible teaches about it
>is what is the final authority on true Christian doctrine.
The OT is the final authority on what is Jewish doctrine. Christian
doctrine, OTOH, holds that the soul is immortal, and that everyone
gets one, and only one, soul, not that everyone *is* a soul.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>KJV is not an acceptable translation to begin with.
Not to you or not to anyone?
--
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
mich
"Shan" <shank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71bd538c.03112...@posting.google.com...
> amhov...@yahoo.no (anne marie hovgaard) wrote in message
news:<705782b9.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> > Levy Oates <levy_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<49porvk00sbh8uicn...@4ax.com>...
> This is a very good point. Should hermaphrodites be permitted to
> become priests in the RCC? I'd say yes and, of course, I would say
> yes to permitting women to become priests or priestesses.
I respect your point of view, and, on the surface, I myself have no
objections to women priests since we are all in unity with
the mystical body of Christ, being the reason why someone is capable of
being a priest in the first place.
However, I also look to the fact that nowhere in the history of the
divinely ordained priesthood, was there a women chosen
to receive such a duty.Jesus chose twelve apostles, also 70 disciples, who
are all identified by Hyppolitus, no women are to be found. Since the
seventy were responsible for establishing churches, they are also to be
viewed as bishops, and priests. My question is this: Would this make God a
"women hater", or could there indeed be a difference between "male and
female".
My opinion is this: Yes there is a difference between the two(male
female), since life was created in such a way.The physical
being the image of the spiritual. It is to my opinion that the male is that
which is given, which is the reason why God is seen as "male" and female is
that which receives, being is the reason why the Church ( congregation of
God) is viewed in terms of "female".When the Church is viewed as the "Body
of Christ", it would be through the priesthood, the giving of the
Sacraments. Between the two, we have a covenant, a bond which is what
christianity is all about.
On the other hand, I believe that man and women have "both" of such
elements withing them, some in a greater proportion of one than the other,
with the exceptions of Jesus(true man) and Mary)(true woman).The women, in
ordinary circumstances, have more of the female element than male, and vice
versa. In abnormal circumstances, we would have the opposite. Therefore,
what happens, when we have a person who is psychologically more female, but
physically is male? In my opinion, it is to be viewed as a deviancy from
what is considered to be naturally normal;we need to ask the question: did
God intended humanity to have homosexuals as well as heterosexuals? My
"personal" opinion is no. Does this mean that a homosexual person is
deviant? No, since the person is the soul; but one can become deviant by
"acting" in such a way. Therefore, yes, I believe that homosexuality is a
deviant act, but so is every every sexual acts performed
which is not for the purpose of what the act was naturally intended for,
that is procreation.Does this mean that I believe most, if not everyone
perform sexual deviant acts? Yes! We are deviant in nature, not only in what
is sexual but in everything which
enable us to be perfectly happy, which is why we are all in need of a
Savior. Therefore, homosexuals are to be respected, not because
homosexuality is a normal behavior, but because "nobody" is to be identified
as being "normal"...we are all sinners.
>
> The RCC gender issue that forbids women from the priesthood is absurd.
> This is not the place to discuss it but male and female are purely
> biological states of being for the purpose of reproduction. They are
> not spiritual in any way. Priests are not supposed to be men in the
> biological sense of reproduction therefore they just as well be
> asexual.
>
> Shan
Therefore, in my opinion, man is an "image" of what is to be called "male",
and the woman is an "image" of what is to be called "female". In respect to
such images, the male only can become a priest.
Nevertheless, I would like to add, that certainly, the Church could
receive other directions from the Holy Spirit, which would enable the woman
to become a priest, such as was the case in the council of Jerusalem
concerning the gentiles.
Andre
mich
> > For an atheist, such as myself, this is merely a curious and fascinating
piece
> > of science, but it seems to me that it creates a dilemma of sorts for
> > Christians.
A soul is very simply the attribute of a living being. A multi personality
does not make a person having more than one soul.
Take the DNA for example; it is made up of genetic information stemming from
a great vast number of other life form influences, but, imbedded in only one
living being, distinct from all other influences.
> This is by far not the only dilemma for theistic religionists. The mere
> fact that they can't even provide any shred of evidence for the existence
> of their god(s) already is a very big one. I am sure they will find some
> sort of cheap cop out for this one, because that is what they usually do,
> with or without a lot of pseudo-philosphical broohaha.
>
> RS
If one cannot conceptualize something to be in existance, such as a
universe having more than three dimentions, does this mean that such a thing
"cannot" exist? While it is true that one can take the stand in believing
only that which can be proven,
what is wrong in taking the position that "anything" can be possible unless
proven otherwise?
With such a position, one needs not to accept the existance of God, but
does not view it to be an impossibility unless proven otherwise.
Andre
Shan
thinking. Thank you for your post.
shan
"mich" <mi...@efni.com> wrote in message news:<vth9bbb...@corp.supernews.com>...
Lawrence Seib
> On 20 Nov 2003 10:38:16 -0800, shank...@yahoo.com (Shan), Message ID:
> <71bd538c.03112...@posting.google.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
> >y...@wish.com (Blast Femur) wrote in message news:<943955F81...@127.0.0.1>...
> >> shank...@yahoo.com (Shan) wrote in
huge snip
> >BTW, I believe in theistic evolution and is not a fundie creationist.
>
> A reasonable point of view.
Certainly more reasonable than creationism, however
if you examine it, it leads to the conclusion that
there is no free will.
Evolution you see beleives that individuals pass
on their traits through genes. Species are created
because the genes change over time. The mechanism
responsible for this change is beleived to be
selection by enviromental pressure, but for my
argument the methode does not matter.
In order for the correct genes to survive,
God must see that every creature everywhere
either lives, dies, or breeds at each moment
since life began. That is if God is really
is guiding evolution.
Larry
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>A soul is very simply the attribute of a living being.
So slime mold colonies have souls. Now the question is this: Does
each cell have a separate soul? Does the entire colony have one soul?
How does it work?
> If one cannot conceptualize something to be in existance, such as a
>universe having more than three dimentions, does this mean that such a thing
>"cannot" exist? While it is true that one can take the stand in believing
>only that which can be proven,
>what is wrong in taking the position that "anything" can be possible unless
>proven otherwise?
Do you put out milk every night so as not to anger the "little
people"? Or do you claim that they don't really exist?
Do you follow all the Levitical Laws, just in case they're still in
effect?
Or are you saying that the only possibility we should accept unless
proven false is your brand of belief?
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
Al Klein
Seib) posted in alt.atheism:
>Evolution you see beleives that individuals pass
>on their traits through genes. Species are created
>because the genes change over time. The mechanism
>responsible for this change is beleived to be
>selection by enviromental pressure, but for my
>argument the methode does not matter.
>In order for the correct genes to survive
There's no such thing as "the correct genes". In many, many cases
over the eons, "the correct genes" DIDN'T survive, and the species
became extinct.
--
Zymurgist # 2
Paavo P
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:krgitvg914ompv063...@Pern.rk...Idea of having multiple souls or spirits or ghost is not so rare. Many
Finnish related peoples believed that there were several souls.
Like one walking behind you as a shadow and if it would get lost person
would get sick. And there were so called "bird soul" living in the head
between skull and head skin. This soul was the one which fly away when
person died (you can see reference to this in Carelian rock
paintings.There's injured looking person having figure of bird over him and
there's line drawn connecting head of the person and the bird).
Shan
Larry,
In my view, nature takes its course and survival of the fittest is the
order of the day.
The only time God interferes with the natural order is at specific
points.
I don't believe God wills that Mr. Bush would press the Nuke-the-World
button by mistake when he reaches for his cigar lighter but sh*t
happens.
Shan
Lawrence Seib
> On 11 Dec 2003 15:05:17 -0800, ls...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence
> Seib) posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >Evolution you see beleives that individuals pass
> >on their traits through genes. Species are created
> >because the genes change over time. The mechanism
> >responsible for this change is beleived to be
> >selection by enviromental pressure, but for my
> >argument the methode does not matter.
>
> >In order for the correct genes to survive
>
> There's no such thing as "the correct genes". In many, many cases
> over the eons, "the correct genes" DIDN'T survive, and the species
> became extinct.
I said that the correct genes must survive if God was
guiding evolution. I do not beleive that God guided
evolution, I do not even beleive their is a God.
This was simply to show how ridiculus guided evolution
is.
Larry
mich
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> each cell have a separate soul? Does the entire colony have one soul?
> How does it work?
In my opinion, a living organism is a soul, since the soul is life itself.
There are many different kinds of life forms. A cell has life, which enables
it to function; it maybe a specialized cell taking share in a more complex
mechanism, such as a muscle; therefore yes, a muscle is a lifeform more
complex than each individual cells. An ant colony is what I believe to be an
incorporel living organism, which is more complex than each single ant.
I don't know how it works, do you understand what life truly is, or do
you, like the rest of us, associate life as having certain characteristics.
What about a virus? Is it alive? if it is, then it might be possible that
even a rock has life, if the rock has an important part to play in the
preservation and growth of a living organism. Have you ever heard of Gaya?
That is what I meant
when I that stated my "personal" opinion being "everything" is possible
unless otherwise proven.
> Do you put out milk every night so as not to anger the "little
> people"? Or do you claim that they don't really exist?
>
> Do you follow all the Levitical Laws, just in case they're still in
> effect?
>
> Or are you saying that the only possibility we should accept unless
> proven false is your brand of belief?
Who said anything about "accepting" a certain belief? I am "not" an
atheist; therefore I don't personally accept your form
of reasoning. Nevertheless, I do accept the possibility of your opinion
being right, since I have no proof otherwise.
On the other hand, you seem to "know" as a fact that God doesn't
exist....without having proof??? very unscientific indeed.
Andre
mich
"Paavo P" <etunimi.keski...@sserveri.fi> wrote in message
news:UhgCb.4788$k4.1...@news1.nokia.com...
Yes, there are several theories of what the soul is or is not; but speaking
of ghosts (spirits), there maybe a difference between it and the soul, as
most religions speak of body, soul and spirit. I'm not trying to pretend to
know what life (soul) actually is.
Life is indeed a mystery, and I just accept the teachings of the church
concerning the soul, which is not a very developed
doctrine.
Andre
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>I'm not trying to pretend to know what life (soul) actually is.
That's good, because the word "soul" has never actually been defined.
>Life is indeed a mystery, and I just accept the teachings of the church
>concerning the soul, which is not a very developed
>doctrine.
It's just an assertion and not worth any more than any other
assertion.
--
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus
was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine,[1615, during the trial of Galileo]
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:krgitvg914ompv063...@Pern.rk...
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:11:24 -0500, "mich" <mi...@efni.com> posted in
>> alt.atheism:
>> So slime mold colonies have souls. Now the question is this: Does
>> each cell have a separate soul? Does the entire colony have one soul?
>> How does it work?
>In my opinion, a living organism is a soul, since the soul is life itself.
So when you die your soul is no more. What, then, goes to heaven?
> I don't know how it works, do you understand what life truly is, or do
>you, like the rest of us, associate life as having certain characteristics.
>What about a virus? Is it alive? if it is, then it might be possible that
>even a rock has life, if the rock has an important part to play in the
>preservation and growth of a living organism. Have you ever heard of Gaya?
>That is what I meant
>when I that stated my "personal" opinion being "everything" is possible
>unless otherwise proven.
So you believe in leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns and that the
universe was created by Maeve last Thursday - since none of those
possibilities has ever been proven to not be true.
>> Do you put out milk every night so as not to anger the "little
>> people"? Or do you claim that they don't really exist?
>> Do you follow all the Levitical Laws, just in case they're still in
>> effect?
>> Or are you saying that the only possibility we should accept unless
>> proven false is your brand of belief?
> Who said anything about "accepting" a certain belief? I am "not" an
>atheist; therefore I don't personally accept your form
>of reasoning.
YOU said that everything is possible unless otherwise proven. Since
none of the things I mentioned have ever been "otherwise proven", you
must accept them all as possible - according to YOUR form of
reasoning.
>Nevertheless, I do accept the possibility of your opinion
>being right, since I have no proof otherwise.
>On the other hand, you seem to "know" as a fact that God doesn't
>exist.
No, I know as a fact that no objective evidence of any god has ever
been presented. Where did I say that I know that there's no god?
--
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
Al Klein
Seib) posted in alt.atheism:
>I said that the correct genes must survive if God was
>guiding evolution. I do not beleive that God guided
>evolution, I do not even beleive their is a God.
>This was simply to show how ridiculus guided evolution
>is.
If some god WERE guiding evolution, the genes that god considered
"correct" would survive. Since neither one of us has any idea what
any god would consider the correct genes, evolution *could* be guided,
and we'd never know.
Of course pink unicorns *could* be invisible, and Maeve *could* have
created the universe last Thursday.
--
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
Brian E. Clark
> However, I also look to the fact that nowhere in the history
> of the divinely ordained priesthood, was there a women chosen
> to receive such a duty.
Let's clarify what that means: We find no accounts of such women in the
canon or in the official history of the church -- but the canon and the
history were both approved by the patriarchal factions which won the
battle to decide what Christianity should profess.
We should not be surprised that the winners suppressed competing
ideologies and the texts and traditions associated which those
"heresies." But we would be foolish indeed to treat the results of that
culling as a true and complete history of early Christian belief.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Hypatia Kosh
> separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began to form
> embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or twins
> would result. However in the case of the people in question the two embryos
> fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
Possibility of having two souls? Sure, you can have two invisible pink
unicorns, right? Or two imaginary friends. Why not two souls?
Possibility of having no brain? Now, science tells us those flatscans
among us actually do have brains, to control their autonomic nervous
functions and make their preachin' lips yabber, but I must say much of
what passes for "debate" on christian newsgroups strikes me as rather
acephalic. So I could go either way on this.
-Hypatia Kosh
--
"Counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor . . ?
Death's too good for them." -- Douglas Adams
Hypatia Kosh
> news:<49porvk00sbh8uicn...@4ax.com>...
> > > Last week's New Scientist reported on several people who's body contains
> two
> > > separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began
> to form
> > > embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or
> twins
> > > would result. However in the case of the people in question the two
> embryos
> > > fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
> >
> > quite rare.
>
> finding an obvious one of course is quite rare but this NS article showed
> that each of us may well be a microchimera, and macrochimeras haven't really
> been searched for but rather turned up (because they had different coloured
> eyes or the sex organs of both males and females) - and they could well be
> as common as twins. I'm sure there's going to be a lot of research on this
> topic in the next few years. personally, I can't wait to see the results
> <snip>
Wow, that sounds really cool! Is that the only way you can get a
hermaphrodite? As I understand it, hormonal problems in utero can
cause some weird mutations, but that wouldn't produce a true
hermaphrodite, right? But it could produce a female with a penis-sized
clit. (Which some doctors would "helpfully" cut off, because of course
all women are far more concerned about looking abnormal than, say,
ever experiencing sexual pleasure.)
Hypatia Kosh
> universe having more than three dimentions, does this mean that such a thing
> "cannot" exist?
What kind of answer is that? I don't think linear algebra has anything
to do with the question posed. This smacks of the Church's ultimate
copout for hard questions--to wave their priestly hands and say
"mysterium."
That's cleric-ese for "our theology has just run into a logical
inconsistency."
The crucial (hehe) fact of the matter, however, is that the
naturalist, the monist, has no trouble at all understanding this (two
embryo) scenario. Only the dualist gets tangled up in knots.
> While it is true that one can take the stand in believing
> only that which can be proven,
> what is wrong in taking the position that "anything" can be possible unless
> proven otherwise?
> With such a position, one needs not to accept the existance of God, but
> does not view it to be an impossibility unless proven otherwise.
So what? If this "God" does not affect your life in any way, why waste
time worrying about it? Our universe could be a micro sub-universe
pinched out of a greater universe, but so what? We'll never know. Our
whole lives could be some sort of Plato's cave shadow of the true
reality, but since we can't detect this noumenal plane, who cares?
Even thinking about it is a waste of time.
Put your effort into what you can observe and interact with. Stop
wasting mental and physical energy on the rest.
Hypatia Kosh
> "Paavo P" <etunimi.keski...@sserveri.fi> wrote in message
> news:UhgCb.4788$k4.1...@news1.nokia.com...
> >
> > "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:krgitvg914ompv063...@Pern.rk...
> > > On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:11:24 -0500, "mich" <mi...@efni.com> posted in
> > > alt.atheism:
> > >
> > Idea of having multiple souls or spirits or ghost is not so rare. Many
> > Finnish related peoples believed that there were several souls.
> > Like one walking behind you as a shadow and if it would get lost person
> > would get sick. And there were so called "bird soul" living in the head
> > between skull and head skin. This soul was the one which fly away when
> > person died (you can see reference to this in Carelian rock
> > paintings.There's injured looking person having figure of bird over him
> and
> > there's line drawn connecting head of the person and the bird).
Cool! Reminds me of the two souls in Egyptian mythology, the ba and
the ka.
> Yes, there are several theories of what the soul is or is not; but speaking
> of ghosts (spirits), there maybe a difference between it and the soul, as
> most religions speak of body, soul and spirit. I'm not trying to pretend to
> know what life (soul) actually is.
Wow. I'd answer you but I can't make heads nor tails of that muddle.
> Life is indeed a mystery, and I just accept the teachings of the church
> concerning the soul, which is not a very developed
> doctrine.
Life is a lot less of a mystery with science -- and without forcing
your thoughts into 2000 year old patterns mistranslated into modern
terms.
Originally spirit meant breath. You took in your first breath when you
were born, and gave out your last breath when you died. Thus spirit
(as in inspiration, expire, suspire) was associated with life. This
was the simple observation of primitive peoples.
Later philosophers in the classical period came up with this silly
dualistic theory of mind, and invented fanciful afterlives. (Primitive
peoples had boring afterlives, like Hades and Hel, where lethargic
(get it?) shades rested after life.)
Modern people are still attached to this ridiculous meme, which both
modern science and common sense show to be an utter fallacy. If our
mind is a "soul" (a "ghost in the machine") then why do we suffer
brain damage? Or dementia in old age?
Give it up. When you die, you die. Better that you did something
worthwhile with your life before that happens.
Hypatia Kosh
> On the other hand, you seem to "know" as a fact that God doesn't
> exist....without having proof??? very unscientific indeed.
Since this entire world functions as if your "God" doesn't exist--I
don't need any God in physics, or chemistry, or any other science; I
do not see any evidence of "God's hand" in human affairs or
Nature--then parsimony tells us to reject the God hypothesis.
Your "God" is a pretty amazing and logically contradictory critter.
I'm sorry, but an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.
But you don't have any proof. Not even a little bit. So I'm afraid I
must toss "God" in the dustbin and move on to more pressing matters,
not to mention more practical ones.
Hypatia Kosh
> shank...@yahoo.com (Shan) wrote in
>
> >You post is interesting but it will make many fundies trip over their
> >two brain cells.
> >
> >Despite Catholic insistence that the soul is created at the point when
> >the cell is fertilized, there are some problems. Conception requires
> >that the egg does not get flushed out and that it sticks to the womb
> >to grow. In other words, there are many automatic or natural
> >"abortions" that happen every time a sperm fertilizes an egg but the
> >egg gets flushed out for reasons that relate to physics and not
> >biology.
> >
> >Now, what happens when the egg splits but instead of forming one fetus
> >it forms identical twins? Does the soul split also? Yes? No? may?
> >For the soul, in my view, to become a "viable" (if I could use the
> >expression) soul, the body needs to be viable also. Biblically, the
> >fictional story of creating man says that "Adam became a living soul."
> > In other words, a human being does not become a living soul unless he
> >has a viable body, in the Biblical sense.
>
> Interesting thought, one I never before came up with myself, for sure.
> I'll add my two cents.
>
> One of the many atheist standpoints on this "soul granting at conception"
> argument is the possibility of a miscarriage, or even death during or
> shortly after birth. When you add the concept of godly omniscience, one
> begins to wonder (if one can surpass the "thou shalt not wonder" clause for
> a moment) why an all-loving god would grant a soul to a conceived child
> when he knows the child will die somewhere along the line, and not having
> the chance to be baptized in christ (or whatever the terminology is), be
> cast irreversably into the fires of hell.
Well, actually, Catholicism does allow for a priest to baptize an
aborted fetus. My mother had two miscarriages, and I think that's what
they did.
Hypatia Kosh
> > Blast Femur
>
> Soul granting as a concept by itself requires to be taken
> clarification. Should we consider that the soul granting business as
> a pick-and-choose matter or as a de facto natural occurrence? I find
> it hard to believe that God waits in his heaven to distribute souls
> every time a sperm and an egg forum a splitting cell -- this very
> statement can render me heretical by many. I believe souls come as a
> natural though spiritual process when a viable body is taking shape.
>
> All souls return to God because they are of his breath of life. The
> claim that unbaptized fetuses go to Hell is an outrageous one and
> which fell by the way side. In the past, I know, Catholic nurses used
> to search for fetuses that were miscarried to baptize them and save
> them from "Hell." That was an absurd practice and no God believing
> person can accept the thought that God sends unbaptized infants or any
> infants for that matter to Hell. Some Christian do not agree with me
> but I cannot believe in a God who would do that.
That's a really good point. I don't think, however, that baptizing an
aborted fetus is absurd; for my mother, when she miscarried, it was
part of her process of mourning for her lost child.
My understanding of Catholicism is that it is highly ritualistic, so
the impulse to baptize aborted foeti is natural. In some way, these
rituals give people comfort in an uncertain world. I don't think
they're really "wrong."
What I think is wrong is the Pope putting out statements such as
"condoms don't prevent AIDS" or pouring tons of money into campaigns
to restrict reproductive rights^1, or trying to legislate their brand
of morality. Fucking assholes. If they were really as holy as they
claimed to be, they wouldn't have to lie. They'd be using their
infrastructure and wealth to make a positive difference in the world,
instead of aiding and abetting the deaths of millions to increase
their count of imaginary souls. What a lot of decrepit bastards.
It's interesting that churchs like the Episcopalians do more charity
work than the Catholics, and less dicking with politics. Maybe if
Catholic priests had families, instead of porking parishoners on the
sly, they wouldn't be so bent on making life in this world so
miserable.
1-Check the news--they just won a big coup in Italy, vastly
restricting fertility services, even donation of semen(!). (I wonder
if they will impose a fine on adultery.)
Hypatia Kosh
> What about hermaphrodites? Then there are the XXY and
> YYX people. I don't think that has even been thought about.
It has been thought about, but mainly just shoved under the rug.
Doctors determine a gender at birth. No genetics test is done, as
simple observation will (usually) suffice. If the genitals are
ambiguous, it is common to cut off the penis or elongated clitoris so
that the baby looks "normal". In the past, sometimes this was done
without the knowledge or consent of the parents. No consideration was
given to the rights of the child (and anyway, according to this
SCOTUS, children don't have any rights anyway--haw-haw!). Once the kid
grows up and finds out they've been genitally mutilated (and possibly
lost a great deal of sexual function), well, too friggin' bad! Anyway,
that won't happen 'til puberty, some 15 years later.
Anyway, if the child reaches puberty and their gender doesn't match
what's on the birth certificate, they can get a document from a doctor
to get their legal gender changed. In more typical cases of
transsexuality, a person will have to, in most states, undergo some
sort of surgery or hormonal therapy to legally change their gender.
(Of course, for those passing as a different gender from what's on
their driver's license, this legal limbo can be quite literally
life-threatening.)
Those who can't fit into the "M" or "F" box are society's trash. We
throw them away. They die by violent crimes every year, and police and
medical "professionals" stand by. (Many are the cases where police
have left transsexuals to bleed in the street, or doctors have denied
transsexuals medicine or care.)
Western civilization likes either/or's: black or white, on or off,
true or false, male or female. Combining states of male and female
just doesn't compute. (Heh, should work via quantum physics analogy,
but we haven't had that science long enough for it to sink in,
evidently.)
/rant
Hypatia Kosh
> Blast Femur <y...@wish.com> wrote in message news:<Xns943ECA194E...@216.148.227.77>...
> > stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote in
> > news:2ku7sv0hif2epln98...@4ax.com:
> >
> >
> > >>My old high school girlfriend is now a lesbian. She survived two bad
> > >>hetero marriages, and is now in a happy marital relation with another
> > >>woman. They went to the beach one Saturday afternoon and said their
> > >>vows with the surf as their witness. It works for me, what's the
> > >>friggin' difference?
> > >
> > > If you would, please relay my congradulations and best wishes to them
> > > both.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Thanks! She'll be thrilled!
>
> I wish them well to.
>
> But I really want to harp on the hermaphrodite thing.
> I do not know how many there are, but what are they supposed
> to do if this amendment gets passed. Are they legally forbidden
> to marry anyone?
Nope, they will be legally able to marry whatever the opposite is to
the gender that the law has assigned them. There is no "hermaphrodite"
checkbox on medical forms. 20th century medical science was all about
forcing intersexuals to be male or female--after all, gender was
completely socialized (so the theory went) so the child simply had to
be raised as the proper gender, while (involuntary) surgery would give
the child proper-looking genitals. No good suburban couple would want
a child who was a grotesque freak of nature, after all . . .
Full marriage rights for same-sex couples would also mean greater
freedom for transsexuals and the transgendered as well--a fact most
seem to forget.
Hypatia Kosh
as far back as 1950's, I think, at least, as psychology was ascendant
and believed that the physical world was completely pliant to its
power . . .
> insist on performing medical procedures to make child conform to what
> the doctor thinks he or she must be. The end result is often a
> disaster where the child grows up to be a woman in a man's body or a
> man in a woman's body.
>
> Children of ambiguous gender regardless of their chromosomes and/or
> their unclear genitalia must be left alone to grow up and decide for
> themselves what gender they feel comfortable in.
Heartily agreed!
"Fixing" newborns is nothing more than GENITAL MUTILATION. We denounce
it in Africa--but it happens right here in the the first world, and it
is wrong.
-Hypatia
Hypatia Kosh
> > > separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began to form
> > > embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or twins
> > > would result. However in the case of the people in question the two embryos
> > > fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
> > >
> > > created at the point of conception. As two fertilised eggs were present then
> > > that means two souls - right? So which soul now inhabits the body of the grown
> > > individual?
> > >
> > And if one half is male, the other female (I recently saw an
> > interesting TV documentary about such a child!) - would s/he be
> > allowed to become a priest?
>
> This is a very good point. Should hermaphrodites be permitted to
> become priests in the RCC? I'd say yes and, of course, I would say
> yes to permitting women to become priests or priestesses.
>
> This is not the place to discuss it but male and female are purely
> biological states of being for the purpose of reproduction. They are
> not spiritual in any way. Priests are not supposed to be men in the
> biological sense of reproduction therefore they just as well be
> asexual.
The Roman Catholic priesthood has its roots in the Mithraic mystery
cult, favored by Roman soldiers, which was a men's religion. Catholic
rite is also influenced by Judaism, in which only men could read the
Torah at synagogue, and only men could be priests. (Of course, there
are no Jewish priests today, because there is no temple--hehe. I guess
YHWH changed his mind about some things.)
The one thing the Roman Catholic hierarchy fears more than anything
else (certainly more than God) is change. I no longer believe that we
will see ordination of women in the RCC in my lifetime. Even if the
priest shortage becomes many times more severe than it is now, their
answer will be to allow priests to marry (as they can in the Eastern
rite) and liberalize the rules for deacons and lay ministers to
celebrate the Mass.
Hypatia Kosh
> "Shan" <shank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:71bd538c.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > amhov...@yahoo.no (anne marie hovgaard) wrote in message
> news:<705782b9.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Levy Oates <levy_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<49porvk00sbh8uicn...@4ax.com>...
>
>
> > become priests in the RCC? I'd say yes and, of course, I would say
> > yes to permitting women to become priests or priestesses.
>
> objections to women priests since we are all in unity with
> the mystical body of Christ, being the reason why someone is capable of
> being a priest in the first place.
> However, I also look to the fact that nowhere in the history of the
> divinely ordained priesthood, was there a women chosen
> are all identified by Hyppolitus, no women are to be found. Since the
> seventy were responsible for establishing churches, they are also to be
> viewed as bishops, and priests. My question is this: Would this make God a
> "women hater", or could there indeed be a difference between "male and
> female".
So my question to you is: what about female deacons in Paul's time?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg5.htm
Hmmm, seems like women were only banned from church office in the 4th
or 5th century. That's pretty fucking late!
Hypatia Kosh
> On 6 Dec 2003 16:17:51 -0800, shank...@yahoo.com (Shan) posted in
> alt.atheism:
>
> >KJV is not an acceptable translation to begin with.
>
> Not to you or not to anyone?
The KJV is a 'pretty' translation, but like the Vulgate before it, it
is riddled with errors. Furthermore, the antiquated language obscures
meaning rather than aiding understanding. Anyone with any genuine
interest in the text would be well-advised to find a more acceptable
modern translation (and not that NIV, which is purposely edited to
serve certain religious agendas).
The problem with Bibles is that everyone has a bias and in many cases
the meaning is not clear. (Even atheist scholars could get into fights
over what certain sentences mean.) My New American (Catholic) Bible is
pretty good and easy to read, but I know of plenty of places where
they translated words in a way that was convenient to Catholic
theologians. (Plus all the notes explaining things (away) get pretty
annoying after a while.)
Gotta laugh at Southern Baptists whose sense of history is so warped
that they think the KJV epistles were written in Paul's own hand,
though . . .
-Hypatia
Hypatia Kosh
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:50:32 -0500, James <vo...@surfbest.net> posted
> in alt.atheism:
>
> >I hope this has helped to somewhat clear up what the BIBLE says about
> >a "soul". What those professing to be 'Christian' in the churches wish
> >to teach about a soul is up to them. What the Bible teaches about it
> >is what is the final authority on true Christian doctrine.
>
> The OT is the final authority on what is Jewish doctrine.
Bullshit. Judaism has a living tradition which continues to this day.
Even Jews who follow Levitical laws have continually adapted to
changes in technology over the centuries. (Notably, the introduction
of electricity into the home.)
"Jews just follow the OT" is the typical bullshit of ignorant and
mis-informed Christians, most of whom have never heard of the names
Maimonides, Hillel or Rashi. Seen any Jews sacrifice pigeons to
expiate sins lately? Oh, you haven't? Funny, that shit is in the
Bible. Huh. Figure that one out, fundies, but don't take all day. You
might get an aneurysm from all that tough thinking.
-Hypatia Kosh
Stephen Korsman
> James <vo...@surfbest.net> wrote in message
news:<8m54tv4u1j5ogt8qj...@4ax.com>...
>
> > The first use of the word "soul" (Hebrew-nephesh) used toward a human
> > (animals are also called souls- see ), was at Ge 2:7,
>
> You came late to the discussion and should have read the various
> comments.
>
> Animals have souls also.
>
> > "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
> > into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
> > (KJV)
>
> KJV is not an acceptable translation to begin with.
>
> air or else He would die. Did you know that?
>
> Read a better translation of the Bible and read clearly what it says
> about humans returning to the dust of the earth and the SOUL back to
> its maker.
>
> If the soul was nothing, nothing needs to return.
>
> You must be a loony Adventist or some of the fringe loony Protestants.
He's a Jehovah's Witness.
http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/soulslp.html
God bless,
Stephen
--
--
Stephen Korsman
skor...@theotokos.co.za
www.theotokos.co.za
www.theotokos.co.za/adventism
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
mich
"Brian E. Clark" <re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a4468622...@netnews.comcast.net...
Maybe, Brian, but I was speaking of Jesus choosing the seventy disciples
and his twelve apostles, also the Levitical law, given by God, did not
permit a womean to become a priest. Why do you suppose no women were chosen
in these instances?
Andre
mich
mich
mich
news:<vth5u09...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Shan" <shank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:71bd538c.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > > amhov...@yahoo.no (anne marie hovgaard) wrote in message
> > news:<705782b9.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Levy Oates <levy_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<49porvk00sbh8uicn...@4ax.com>...
>
What were the duties of the deacon/ness?
>
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg5.htm
>
> Hmmm, seems like women were only banned from church office in the 4th
> or 5th century. That's pretty fucking late!
>
> -Hypatia Kosh
But here,Hypatia, you're speaking non-cahtolic literature, used by the
gnostics. We could speak of other religions having not only deaconess, but
priestess, and I respect this. But where, in catholic litterarture would we
find women priests?
If you believe Jesus to be divine (I don't know what you believe), why do
you think he did not choose any woman himself to take part in the
establishment of his church? Why couldn't he have chosen 6 male apostles and
6 women? Again, I personly don't object to women priests, but I do find it
odd that nowhere in the old testament and the history of the catholic church
do we find women priests, that's all I'm saying.
Andre
mich
> "mich" <mi...@efni.com> wrote in message
news:<vtklkpb...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Paavo P" <etunimi.keski...@sserveri.fi> wrote in message
> > news:UhgCb.4788$k4.1...@news1.nokia.com...
> > >
> > > "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:krgitvg914ompv063...@Pern.rk...
> > > > On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:11:24 -0500, "mich" <mi...@efni.com> posted in
> > > > alt.atheism:
>
>
> the ka.
The definition of ba is very close to the definition of the soul as ka is
close to what we view as being the spirit.
>
> > Yes, there are several theories of what the soul is or is not; but
speaking
> > of ghosts (spirits), there maybe a difference between it and the soul,
as
> > most religions speak of body, soul and spirit. I'm not trying to pretend
to
> > know what life (soul) actually is.
>
> Wow. I'd answer you but I can't make heads nor tails of that muddle.
yet, ba and ka was revealing?
> Life is a lot less of a mystery with science -- and without forcing
> your thoughts into 2000 year old patterns mistranslated into modern
> terms.
What is life, then; we would all love to know....do not speak of
"characteristics" of life, because, this, we know.
As we know much "about" electricity, while having no clue as to what it
actually is.
> Originally spirit meant breath. You took in your first breath when you
> were born, and gave out your last breath when you died. Thus spirit
> (as in inspiration, expire, suspire) was associated with life. This
> was the simple observation of primitive peoples.
Yes, and the bible speaks of the face of God...without taking this
literally.
Nobody denies that respiration and the heart beat has been seen then, as it
is now attributes to what is alive; neverthless, these are also symbolic to
what is considered spiritual, unseen.You need not to accept this, of course,
but how is it that according to you, those who accept it are to be seen as
ignorant?
> Modern people are still attached to this ridiculous meme, which both
> modern science and common sense show to be an utter fallacy.
Therefore, according to your reasoning, scientists are not allowed to have
faith, since science has shown (proved)
that all of this is utter fallacy.What is your contribution to the
scientific world, and how do you explain those scientists
who do believe in God? If there are great scientists, many of whom
contributed in Quantum physics, who freely acknowledge their belief in God,
wouldn't this make your statement, "modern science and common sense show to
be an utter fallacy",an utter fallacy?
>If our
> mind is a "soul" (a "ghost in the machine") then why do we suffer
> brain damage? Or dementia in old age?
A ghost in a machine might be a supericial explanation of what life is in
any way you look at it. Such analogy can be used by atheists themselves.
There is a contradiction everyone notices when one looks at a dead body in a
casket. A person, once so full of life, has become as a rock. His "anima" is
no longer within him/her. Therefore even atheist will use symbolic language
for what they observe...He/she is gone.
To believe this person is nevertheless still conscious, is a belief, which
needs not to be followed, but for those who do follow such belief, I don't
see where the non-believers have the right and knowledge to claim that such
belief is a fallacy. You need proof to make such a statement, something
which you don't have.
According to relativity, if a person would be capable of travelling at the
speed of light, such person would be "eternal"...
that is not religion, but science. The problem is that no mass has the
capacity to travel at the speed of light as it would take an infinite amount
of energy to produce such an effect.
Now, you, as all the great scientists, do not know what life is; if life,
is a form of light, as the scriptures hint, life is eternal.
True, we don't know this, but you do not know it is not...
> Give it up. When you die, you die. Better that you did something
> worthwhile with your life before that happens.
>
> -Hypatia Kosh
...and if I continue to believe...what's it to you?
Andre
mich
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:53:22 -0500, "mich" <mi...@efni.com> posted in
> alt.atheism:
>
> >"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:krgitvg914ompv063...@Pern.rk...
> >> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:11:24 -0500, "mich" <mi...@efni.com> posted in
> >> alt.atheism:
>
itself.
>
> So when you die your soul is no more. What, then, goes to heaven?
To identify a soul in a box( body) is a good analogy, but, in my opinion
still remains only an analogy.
Water flowing through some pipes, it's velocity, pressure, is a good analogy
for electricity, but is only an analogy as it doesn't explain it's advanced
concepts. Nevertheless, it does explain the basic principles of electricity
and so is being used.
As I mention before, I do not know what life is, and therefore can only
speak of personal opinion.
What if, life does not actually leave, but the universe totaly changes when
death is experienced. Time is a product of the universe, and so, let's say,
that at the moment of death every dimentions of the universe is experienced
at once.Quantum mechanics speaks of the possibility of a number of
dimentions, much greater than three,or four.the possibility of multy
universes, relativity speaks of different frames of reference as
experiencing different relative time flow. Since light travels at c,
it, in a way of speaking, experiences all of this at once....what if life
has similar properties as that of light?
> >That is what I meant
> >when I that stated my "personal" opinion being "everything" is possible
> >unless otherwise proven.
>
> So you believe in leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns and that the
> universe was created by Maeve last Thursday - since none of those
> possibilities has ever been proven to not be true.
I can and do indeed reject and accept certain beliefs...nevertheless, "if" I
cannot prove the existance of invisible pink unicorn
to be non existant, while some truly believe they exist, I cannot say to
"them" they are wrong, unless I could prove it to be false.I would indeed
show them my reasoning as to why I personally reject it.Notice, that the
invisible pink unicorn can indeed exist if the theory is properly explained.
If the theory speaks of something invisible, and cannot in any ways be
physically observed, nor detected, nor has it any history of some kind,then,
it does indeed exist in the form of a concept.Reality can be subjective or
objective. To claim that only objective relativty is real, is to put a
definition of relatity which quantum mechanics would disagree with.
Now, if a claim is made that the pink unicorn is an objective reality
capable of being experienced when someone praying to this pink unicorn every
night, will receive good luck, I have the right to accept it or reject it.
But, here, the claim is different, for now the pink unicorn can indeed be
experienced, and is no longer a concept only, since it now is an objective
realtiy. If you ask me now, I reject the claim that it exists, but without
stating those who believe as being nonsensical, since I have no way of
proving otherwise. Quantum mechanics speaks of the universe as being weird
to the extant that Bohr said,"if someone doesn't view the claims of quantum
mechanics as being weird, then, they do not know what quantum menchanic
implies.
> > Who said anything about "accepting" a certain belief? I am "not" an
> >atheist; therefore I don't personally accept your form
> >of reasoning.
>
> YOU said that everything is possible unless otherwise proven. Since
> none of the things I mentioned have ever been "otherwise proven", you
> must accept them all as possible - according to YOUR form of
> reasoning.
All as possible outcome, yes, but that doesn't mean that I accept everything
as personally valid theories.
Again, I cannot be an atheist and a theist at the same time. I cannot also
prove either one of these possibilities as being wrong.
Therefore, I accept one possibility, and reject the other one, but without
claiming the other outcome as being impossible...
since I do not have proof.
> >Nevertheless, I do accept the possibility of your opinion
> >being right, since I have no proof otherwise.
> >On the other hand, you seem to "know" as a fact that God doesn't
> >exist.
>
> No, I know as a fact that no objective evidence of any god has ever
> been presented. Where did I say that I know that there's no god?
When you claimed my theory of everything being possible unless proven
otherwise as being erronious; since God cannot be
proven to be non-existant,it must mean that his existance, according to you,
cannot be possible.
> --
> "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic.
Then what is wrong with my theory?
I am convinced that a vivid
> consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the
betterment and
> ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a
law-giver who
> works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
I totally agree that your form of reasoning is a valid one. I understand
your dilema of eternal hell. My personal opinion, is like that of Origen, of
the third century...Every creation of God will return eventually to God as
we have been created all to be with him. nevertheless, it needs to come from
free will, as the bond needs to come from love.
Andre
mich
news:<vtk3m06...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > On the other hand, you seem to "know" as a fact that God doesn't
> > exist....without having proof??? very unscientific indeed.
>
> Since this entire world functions as if your "God" doesn't exist--I
> don't need any God in physics, or chemistry, or any other science; I
> do not see any evidence of "God's hand" in human affairs or
> Nature--then parsimony tells us to reject the God hypothesis.
...the laws of physics,chemistry, or any other science are simply
interpretations of observations to the natural world.
Those laws are not understood at all. The velocity of light is invariant..
explain the law as to why it is so?
> Your "God" is a pretty amazing and logically contradictory critter.
> I'm sorry, but an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.
> But you don't have any proof.
What proofs do we have of the string theory? Are the people who believe in
this theory unreasonable according to you?
I believe the theory of evolution is a valid theory, while recognizing at
the same time the problem involved in missing links.
We ought to have a very great number of transition fossiles identifying the
change of one species to another.What has been found, as of now, is not
enough for what the theory demands.Darwin was the first to claim that this
was a must for his theory to survive.Do you believe in the theory of
evolution "only" because it can explains away the existance of God? If yes,
then you are a very shallow person.
... Not even a little bit. So I'm afraid I
> must toss "God" in the dustbin and move on to more pressing matters,
> not to mention more practical ones.
In this, I fully agree with you. If you personally cannot accept the concept
of a God, you personally must toss
this notion in the dustbin. No one is saying differently. If God does indeed
exist, you will eventually know.
But this is a far cry from stating those who do believe are totaly
insane.While these were not your exact words, it is pretty much what I've
read into what you have written.
Andre
Shan
It is an elementary lesson for anyone who is involved in translation
that the best translator is one who is not involved in the subject
material.
In the case of Biblical translator, the best ones would be atheists
who have no agenda but linguistics.
shan
stoney
<vth9bbb...@corp.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>"Richard Smol" <jaz...@dds.nl> wrote in message
>news:2767b33a.03112...@posting.google.com...
>> Levy Oates <levy_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<49porvk00sbh8uicn...@4ax.com>...
>
>> > For an atheist, such as myself, this is merely a curious and fascinating
>piece
>> > of science, but it seems to me that it creates a dilemma of sorts for
>> > Christians.
>
>A soul is very simply the attribute of a living being. A multi personality
>does not make a person having more than one soul.
>Take the DNA for example; it is made up of genetic information stemming from
>a great vast number of other life form influences, but, imbedded in only one
>living being, distinct from all other influences.
>
>
>> This is by far not the only dilemma for theistic religionists. The mere
>> fact that they can't even provide any shred of evidence for the existence
>> of their god(s) already is a very big one. I am sure they will find some
>> sort of cheap cop out for this one, because that is what they usually do,
>> with or without a lot of pseudo-philosphical broohaha.
>>
>> RS
>
> If one cannot conceptualize something to be in existance, such as a
>universe having more than three dimentions, does this mean that such a thing
>"cannot" exist? While it is true that one can take the stand in believing
>only that which can be proven,
>what is wrong in taking the position that "anything" can be possible unless
>proven otherwise?
> With such a position, one needs not to accept the existance of God, but
>does not view it to be an impossibility unless proven otherwise.
Sorry, but it (God) is an impossibility as things stand at this point
in time.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
stoney
<etunimi.keski...@sserveri.fi>, Message ID:
<UhgCb.4788$k4.1...@news1.nokia.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:krgitvg914ompv063...@Pern.rk...
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:11:24 -0500, "mich" <mi...@efni.com> posted in
>> alt.atheism:
>>
>Idea of having multiple souls or spirits or ghost is not so rare. Many
>Finnish related peoples believed that there were several souls.
>Like one walking behind you as a shadow and if it would get lost person
>would get sick. And there were so called "bird soul" living in the head
>between skull and head skin. This soul was the one which fly away when
>person died (you can see reference to this in Carelian rock
>paintings.There's injured looking person having figure of bird over him and
>there's line drawn connecting head of the person and the bird).
How interesting. Thank you, Paavo.
stoney
ID: <fb1e5579.03121...@posting.google.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>"mich" <mi...@efni.com> wrote in message news:<vtk3m06...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> On the other hand, you seem to "know" as a fact that God doesn't
>> exist....without having proof??? very unscientific indeed.
>
>Since this entire world functions as if your "God" doesn't exist--I
>don't need any God in physics, or chemistry, or any other science; I
>do not see any evidence of "God's hand" in human affairs or
>Nature--then parsimony tells us to reject the God hypothesis.
>
>Your "God" is a pretty amazing and logically contradictory critter.
>I'm sorry, but an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.
>But you don't have any proof. Not even a little bit. So I'm afraid I
>must toss "God" in the dustbin and move on to more pressing matters,
>not to mention more practical ones.
Was that from "2 point" or from "3 point" distance?
stoney
Message ID: <75ab6396.03121...@posting.google.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote in message news:<rtj7svkevj4i71jaa...@4ax.com>...
>> On 20 Nov 2003 10:38:16 -0800, shank...@yahoo.com (Shan), Message ID:
>> <71bd538c.03112...@posting.google.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>>
>> >y...@wish.com (Blast Femur) wrote in message news:<943955F81...@127.0.0.1>...
>> >> shank...@yahoo.com (Shan) wrote in
>
>huge snip
>
>> >BTW, I believe in theistic evolution and is not a fundie creationist.
>>
>> A reasonable point of view.
>
>Certainly more reasonable than creationism, however
>if you examine it, it leads to the conclusion that
>there is no free will.
>
>Evolution you see beleives that individuals pass
>on their traits through genes. Species are created
>because the genes change over time. The mechanism
>responsible for this change is beleived to be
>selection by enviromental pressure, but for my
>argument the methode does not matter.
>
>In order for the correct genes to survive,
>God must see that every creature everywhere
>either lives, dies, or breeds at each moment
>since life began. That is if God is really
>is guiding evolution.
Now that really starts getting into efficiencies, imo. There's no
reason for a silly game when the end result is going to be 'x.' Just go
from start to finish and leave out the useless steps inbetween.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>Nobody denies that respiration and the heart beat has been seen then, as it
>is now attributes to what is alive; neverthless, these are also symbolic to
>what is considered spiritual, unseen.You need not to accept this, of course,
>but how is it that according to you, those who accept it are to be seen as
>ignorant?
How is it that those who accept ignorant assertions are seen as
ignorant? That question could only come from someone who is ignorant.
>If there are great scientists, many of whom
>contributed in Quantum physics, who freely acknowledge their belief in God,
>wouldn't this make your statement, "modern science and common sense show to
>be an utter fallacy",an utter fallacy?
No. Please show how this could be so. Other than asserting it, of
course.
> To believe this person is nevertheless still conscious, is a belief, which
>needs not to be followed, but for those who do follow such belief, I don't
>see where the non-believers have the right and knowledge to claim that such
>belief is a fallacy. You need proof to make such a statement, something
>which you don't have.
No, YOU need to prove your assertion that something lives on after
physical death. We don't need proof to refuse to accept your baseless
assertion.
> According to relativity, if a person would be capable of travelling at the
>speed of light, such person would be "eternal".
Only due to a difference in definition, as it were. The person would
still die, just after infinite time.
>The problem is that no mass has the
>capacity to travel at the speed of light as it would take an infinite amount
>of energy to produce such an effect.
> Now, you, as all the great scientists, do not know what life is; if life,
>is a form of light, as the scriptures hint, life is eternal.
Since it isn't, it isn't.
>True, we don't know this, but you do not know it is not...
We may not know what life is - but we do know some of the things it
isn't and, since life exists in total darkness, life isn't any form of
light.
>> Give it up. When you die, you die. Better that you did something
>> worthwhile with your life before that happens.
>...and if I continue to believe...what's it to you?
Nothing - as long as you don't try to push that belief on anyone else,
or try to change their lives in any way due to that belief. Your
freedom to believe ends where anyone else begins.
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>As I mention before, I do not know what life is, and therefore can only
>speak of personal opinion.
Which concerns no one but you. As I've said, you can believe whatever
damn fool thing you like, but only so far as it doesn't impinge on
anyone else.
>What if, life does not actually leave, but the universe totaly changes when
>death is experienced.
I've experienced death and the universe didn't change, so your "what
if" doesn't warrant discussion.
>Time is a product of the universe, and so, let's say,
>that at the moment of death every dimentions of the universe is experienced
>at once.
At the moment of death - and after that - nothing is experienced.
Experience is SOLELY for the living, since it occurs by means of a
living brain.
>Quantum mechanics speaks of the possibility of a number of
>dimentions, much greater than three,or four.the possibility of multy
>universes, relativity speaks of different frames of reference as
>experiencing different relative time flow. Since light travels at c,
>it, in a way of speaking, experiences all of this at once....what if life
>has similar properties as that of light?
Since it doesn't, it doesn't.
Anything that hasn't been disproved "may" be, but unless you have some
actual objective evidence to back up your what ifs, no one cares what
you think. But you MUST accept the possibility of leprechauns, and
that what you think of as your god is really Satan. Unless you want
to show the world what a hypocrite you really are.
>> >That is what I meant
>> >when I that stated my "personal" opinion being "everything" is possible
>> >unless otherwise proven.
>> So you believe in leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns and that the
>> universe was created by Maeve last Thursday - since none of those
>> possibilities has ever been proven to not be true.
>I can and do indeed reject and accept certain beliefs.
Why reject any - they may be true. According to you.
>..nevertheless, "if" I
>cannot prove the existance of invisible pink unicorn
>to be non existant, while some truly believe they exist, I cannot say to
>"them" they are wrong, unless I could prove it to be false.
Since the concept was DESIGNED TO BE false, it is false. (A pink
thing can't be invisible, by the definitions of "pink" and "invisible"
- NO thing can be both.)
>> > Who said anything about "accepting" a certain belief? I am "not" an
>> >atheist; therefore I don't personally accept your form
>> >of reasoning.
>> YOU said that everything is possible unless otherwise proven. Since
>> none of the things I mentioned have ever been "otherwise proven", you
>> must accept them all as possible - according to YOUR form of
>> reasoning.
>All as possible outcome, yes, but that doesn't mean that I accept everything
>as personally valid theories.
You said "possible", not "possible outcomes". Are you going to start
weaseling now?
>Again, I cannot be an atheist and a theist at the same time. I cannot also
>prove either one of these possibilities as being wrong.
Proof is required of existentially positive assertions - it's not
required to disprove anything.
>Therefore, I accept one possibility, and reject the other one, but without
>claiming the other outcome as being impossible...
>since I do not have proof.
IOW you're a salad bar Christian - you accept what you like and reject
what you don't like. According to St. Augustine you're no Christian.
>> >Nevertheless, I do accept the possibility of your opinion
>> >being right, since I have no proof otherwise.
>> >On the other hand, you seem to "know" as a fact that God doesn't
>> >exist.
>> No, I know as a fact that no objective evidence of any god has ever
>> been presented. Where did I say that I know that there's no god?
>When you claimed my theory of everything being possible unless proven
>otherwise as being erronious
1) It's not a theory, it's an assertion.
2) I claimed that your assertion is invalid, not that your god doesn't
exist.
>since God cannot be
>proven to be non-existant,it must mean that his existance, according to you,
>cannot be possible.
No, that since you don't present objective evidence that your god
objectively exists, your assertion that he does must be rejected.
There's a difference.
>> "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic.
>Then what is wrong with my theory?
Present one and we'll see. So far all you've presented is the
assertion that what can't be proved impossible must be considered
possible. That's false, erroneous and fallacious.
>> I am convinced that a vivid
>> consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
>> ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
>> works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
>I totally agree that your form of reasoning is a valid one.
You snipped the attribution. That's Einstein's form of reasoning.
> I understand your dilema of eternal hell.
There's no dilemma - it doesn't exist.
>My personal opinion, is like that of Origen, of
>the third century...Every creation of God will return eventually to God as
>we have been created all to be with him. nevertheless, it needs to come from
>free will, as the bond needs to come from love.
So all you need do now is present objective evidence that this god
objectively exists. Otherwise your personal opinion is nothing but
nonsense.
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<cb18tvgfa0ll9ruft...@Pern.rk>...
>> On 6 Dec 2003 16:17:51 -0800, shank...@yahoo.com (Shan) posted in
>> alt.atheism:
>> >KJV is not an acceptable translation to begin with.
>> Not to you or not to anyone?
>The KJV is a 'pretty' translation, but like the Vulgate before it, it
>is riddled with errors.
When compared to previous bibles. Since we don;t have a single
"original", we don't know whether ANY translation is error-free.
>Gotta laugh at Southern Baptists whose sense of history is so warped
>that they think the KJV epistles were written in Paul's own hand,
>though . . .
If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for them.
Shan
> On 12 Dec 2003 23:14:16 -0800, be...@lycos.com (Hypatia Kosh) posted
> in alt.atheism:
>
> >Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<cb18tvgfa0ll9ruft...@Pern.rk>...
> >> On 6 Dec 2003 16:17:51 -0800, shank...@yahoo.com (Shan) posted in
> >> alt.atheism:
>
> >> >KJV is not an acceptable translation to begin with.
>
> >> Not to you or not to anyone?
>
> >The KJV is a 'pretty' translation, but like the Vulgate before it, it
> >is riddled with errors.
>
> When compared to previous bibles. Since we don;t have a single
> "original", we don't know whether ANY translation is error-free.
>
> >Gotta laugh at Southern Baptists whose sense of history is so warped
> >that they think the KJV epistles were written in Paul's own hand,
> >though . . .
>
> If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for them.
I think Jesus uses the NIV or NASB. His English is terrible and
speaks with a heavy Jewish accent. The free copy we sent him was
returned.
Shan
mich
never to go to alt.atheism and start an argument.
I thought I was responding to an atheist posting in christian roman
catholic. I will make sure to post only in roman catholic in the future.
Andre
mich
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> Which concerns no one but you. As I've said, you can believe whatever
> damn fool thing you like, but only so far as it doesn't impinge on
> anyone else.
...and where did I mention that you needed to believe in God? Didn't I
actually say that atheism is a possible theory?
> I've experienced death and the universe didn't change, so your "what
> if" doesn't warrant discussion.
...and your non-experince doesn't prove otherwise, as others will tell you
they have experienced something.
I'm not saying that what they experienced could not have anything to do with
endorphines released during trauma, some nevertheless did experience
something. If a person ,drunk the night before ,does not remember anything
he has done, does this mean he was unconscious all this time? He might have
driven back home in his own car...
> At the moment of death - and after that - nothing is experienced.
> Experience is SOLELY for the living, since it occurs by means of a
> living brain.
Nevertheless the concept of time could be very different. He could possibly
experience an eternal moment.
>>....what if life
> >has similar properties as that of light?
>
> Since it doesn't, it doesn't.
The problem is we don't know what life is...as gravity might imply a
possible particle called the graviton, it's characteristic
very similar to the photon, but no experiment as of yet even suggests the
possibility of such a particle. Nevertheless, I've never heard a scientist
respond in such a way...since it doesn't, it doesn't????.
> Anything that hasn't been disproved "may" be,
...and that is "all" that I'm saying. So are you prepared to claim that God
"may" exist until his existance is disproved?
>but unless you have some
> actual objective evidence to back up your what ifs, no one cares what
> you think.
Therefore why are you in this religious newsgroup to argue his
non-existance? If you have not entered this newsgroup,
and our exchange of opinions are only due to cross postings, I've already
sent a post apologizing for writing in alt. atheism, as I don't belong in
such a newsgroup, my intent was never and is still not to try to persuade my
opinions upon anyone.I was unaware that I was crossposting. If this is the
case, then we will stop exchanging opinions, as I have already told you that
I believe atheism is a possible and valid opinion, of which I simply don't
share.
> But you MUST accept the possibility of leprechauns, and
> that what you think of as your god is really Satan. Unless you want
> to show the world what a hypocrite you really are.
I do believe that leprechauns, santa and the easter bunny are
concepts, therefore, are real, although only to the subjective mind...I
personally don't believe them to be real otherwise than this. If,
nevertheless, there are some people who truly believed in leprechauns as an
objective reality, then, "if" I want to tell them they are wrong, I need to
"show"(prove)
them to be wrong. I might be able to do so, or maybe not...I know nothing
about such creatures.But that doesn't mean to say that if I cannot disprove
their beliefs, that I'm forced to accept it's existance....I never claimed
that you needed to believe in God because of the fact that you cannot prove
his non existance...I have said more than once that atheism is a possibly
correct theory.
> >I can and do indeed reject and accept certain beliefs.
>
> Why reject any - they may be true. According to you.
Tell me, how can I accept atheism and theism at the same time?
>
> >..nevertheless, "if" I
> >cannot prove the existance of invisible pink unicorn
> >to be non existant, while some truly believe they exist, I cannot say to
> >"them" they are wrong, unless I could prove it to be false.
>
> Since the concept was DESIGNED TO BE false, it is false. (A pink
> thing can't be invisible, by the definitions of "pink" and "invisible"
> - NO thing can be both.)
when speaking of invisible pink unicorn as being real, we were speaking of
the subjective mind. In order for something to be pink objectively, you need
a part of the light's spectrum to hit your retina or a sensor of some kind.
Close your eyes, imagine a pink unicorn, if you can see it, then you have a
subjective reality; anything subjective, is invisible since it cannot be
observed experimentally. There are airplanes that are invisible to
radar...yet they still exist; they simply deflect light away from a
detector. For those who believe in apparitions of Mary she can be seen by
some while being invisible to others.
>
> >All as possible outcome, yes, but that doesn't mean that I accept
everything
> >as personally valid theories.
>
> You said "possible", not "possible outcomes". Are you going to start
> weaseling now?
No , your just starting to get it. How many times have I said, I do not
accept atheism, since I'm a theist, but do accept the possibility of atheism
as being true.On a jury, one will give his verdict according to the
interpretation of the evidence at hand.
The jury will either believe the defendant to be guilty or innocent.That
doesn't mean the jury is 100% certain of their verdict.
Nevertheless, a decision needs to be made.
> Proof is required of existentially positive assertions - it's not
> required to disprove anything.
Therefore, a blind mind ought not to accept the objective reality of the
existance of the moon and stars, since,
their existance will never be able to be proven to him personally, and since
he is not required to show proof of it's non-existance.
> >Therefore, I accept one possibility, and reject the other one, but
without
> >claiming the other outcome as being impossible...
> >since I do not have proof.
>
> IOW you're a salad bar Christian - you accept what you like and reject
> what you don't like. According to St. Augustine you're no Christian.
I have personally accepted all of catholicism dogmatic teachings; that makes
me catholic. if I believe in
something outside of catholic teachings, I'm free to do so until the church
says otherwise.
> >since God cannot be
> >proven to be non-existant,it must mean that his existance, according to
you,
> >cannot be possible.
>
> No, that since you don't present objective evidence that your god
> objectively exists, your assertion that he does must be rejected.
> There's a difference.
But I could not have claimed the existance of God to be fact, if I claimed
the atheist belief as a possibilty at the same time.
> Present one and we'll see. So far all you've presented is the
> assertion that what can't be proved impossible must be considered
> possible. That's false, erroneous and fallacious.
If this statement is erronious, please write one that isn't fallacious.
>
> > I understand your dilema of eternal hell.
>
> There's no dilemma - it doesn't exist.
..this is the "only" problem that I have with your reasoning. "it doesn't
exist".
When someone comes to you and says "you will go to hell because of your
disbelief",
do you not think within you "how can a person make such a audacious
statement?"
How can one claim "that's the way it is, like it or not!" It's your view, of
which you are allowed to,
but, in my mind, lacks reason.... but at least I claim, the statement to be
"in my opnion" and not as a fact.
> So all you need do now is present objective evidence that this god
> objectively exists. Otherwise your personal opinion is nothing but
> nonsense.
Objective realities would be what the scripture speaks of...God appears to
Abraham, Moses...
The apostles witnessing the resurrected Christ, but I don't have evidence of
such occurences.
What about an event which happened less than one hundred years ago(I'm not
sure as to where this will lead us)
On the 13th of October, 1916, there is an event, recorded within the
newspapers in Europe, concerning an apparition
at Fatima,Portugal.
Now the apparition is not directly what I want to discuss, but what the
crowed who gathered there witnessed.
The movement of the sun, a torrential rainfall, where after, everything was
dry, and the fact that we're speaking of
tens of thousands of people, and not only a few. How do you interpret what
happened, if anything happened on that day?
Andre
Lawrence Seib
Yes it would be ineffecent, however that is what guided
evolution means. It is the beleif that evolution is
how humans and all animals came to be, but that it was
steered by God. Since we know that evolution works because
of survival of the fittest by the mixing of genes, and
since the genes are affected by all of the ancesters,
that must mean Gods hand was in absolutely everything
Larry
Lawrence Seib
> ls...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote in message news:<75ab6396.03121...@posting.google.com>...
> > stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote in message news:<rtj7svkevj4i71jaa...@4ax.com>...
> > > On 20 Nov 2003 10:38:16 -0800, shank...@yahoo.com (Shan), Message ID:
> > > <71bd538c.03112...@posting.google.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
> > >
> > > >y...@wish.com (Blast Femur) wrote in message news:<943955F81...@127.0.0.1>...
> > > >> shank...@yahoo.com (Shan) wrote in
> >
> > huge snip
> >
> > > >BTW, I believe in theistic evolution and is not a fundie creationist.
> > >
> > > A reasonable point of view.
> >
> > Certainly more reasonable than creationism, however
> > if you examine it, it leads to the conclusion that
> > there is no free will.
> >
> > Evolution you see beleives that individuals pass
> > on their traits through genes. Species are created
> > because the genes change over time. The mechanism
> > responsible for this change is beleived to be
> > selection by enviromental pressure, but for my
> > argument the methode does not matter.
> >
> > In order for the correct genes to survive,
> > God must see that every creature everywhere
> > either lives, dies, or breeds at each moment
> > since life began. That is if God is really
> > is guiding evolution.
>
>
> In my view, nature takes its course and survival of the fittest is the
> order of the day.
>
> The only time God interferes with the natural order is at specific
> points.
Well you see Shan, your genes are what make you human.
Every single creature in your linage has affected your
genes, and what it means to be human.
Why then would God only partially decide what it means
to be human, and leave the rest to chance?
Larry
stoney
Which illustrates omni-incompetance.