Re: Do you believe in the immortality of the soul?
Nomen Nescio
> Do you believe in the immortality of the soul?
>hey folks I only have Messianics on my list
>So I want to hear what your views are on a number of issues
>starting with the Immortality of the soul
>Do you believe in the immortality of the soul?
>What do you think of the doctrine that Traditional Christianity
>says when you die your soul goes directly to heaven if you
>are good and directly to hell if you are bad.
>I dont believe in billions of judgement days but rather the
>person is just dead until Yeshua returns and resurrects the
>dead and Judgement is done then. I dont think that man
>has an immortal soul but one of the rewards of the saints
>is they are given immortality at the resurrection. I dont
>believe in eternal punnishing but rather eternal punnishment.
>In the end when the smoke clears the unrighteous shall
>be ashes under the saints feet.
>So please send me your answer please please please
>however how brief. Detailed responses is much
>appreciated
>Shalom
>Mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
It seems there are what are generally called "orthodox" views,
beliefs, opinions, etc.; and there are varying divergences of
less orthodox views, etc., i.e. perhaps less common opinions,
which may appear to be at odds with organized world religion.
But believing apparently comes easier to those who see that or
whom in which they believe, in contrast to persons who believe
more or less without seeing, or without demanding added proof.
Then there are those who believe in disbelief, (ir)regardless.
For example, some of us mortally-incarnate sinners can remember
past mortal incarnations, whereas others say that they have not.
Some of us remember past discarnate sojourns, but others do not.
But even of those who have not (yet) remembered past lifetimes
mortally-incarnate upon the earth, some still believe in having
lived before, i.e. in profound cycles of real (re)incarnations,
very much as most all ancient cultures believed and understood,
each to their own personal & collective limitations, of course.
In other words, there are those who believe without seeing, or
hearing, or feeling, or remembering, etc. Some call this blind
faith. Naturally, those who hold more orthodox religious views
tend to discount any faith in things be they seen or unseen by
its beholder, where such faith, views, beliefs, opinions, etc.,
appears to conflict with what they've been taught to believe,
within the tenets of their typically more "orthodox" religion.
From my experience, it seems there are two primary schools of
thought among orthodox world religions where the supernatural,
occult, paranormal, etc., is concerned. They either say it is
"claptrap", "insanity", "charlatanism", ad nauseam, or else
they say it is a "trick of the devil", "satanic", "witchcraft",
similarly ad nauseam. Those who fall into either of those two
schools of thought tend to either mock or flee from (or both)
"taboo" subjects like judicial astrology, tarot, egyptology,
psychic mediumship, astral projection, past-life regression,
clairvoyance, clairaudience, clairsentience, psychokinesis,
telepathy, universality, eternity, infinity, ad infinitum.
The orthodox critics will either claim that "our scientists
have proven that all religion is self-deluding insanity for
the intellectually-inferior", or else they'll say that "the
scriptures say this", or "the scriptures say that", always
predictably to "prove" that they are more knowledgeable and
wise than those whom they're criticizing. Such "group-think"
or "cookie-cutter" views are apparently reassuring to those
who hold them. I don't hold such views, but I respect those
who do -- each to the precise degree that they respect mine.
For example, as a devout believer in karma and reincarnation,
I understand that if I don't respect the religious beliefs of
Atheists (who are a devout Christian's most vehement critics),
then I could well incarnate as an Atheist in my next lifetime,
if I don't remain humble, true and kind, remembering that all
men are Created equal. But if I ever should forget my place,
and stoop to their level of bigotry and intolerance, then I
would place my soul in danger of reaping their grave reward.
Perhaps Voltaire (rather witty as Atheists go) said it best:
"Monsieur l'abbe, je deteste ce que vous ecrivez,
My sire of the abbey, I detest that which you write,
mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez
but I would give my life for that you have the puissance
continuer a ecrire."
to continue to write.
--alleged by Norbert Guterman, editor of 'A Book of French
Quotations', to be from an original Voltaire letter dated
6 Feurier 1771, to M. le Riche. This quote is unconfirmed.
So it's everyone's right to choose his own path, whether it
be good, and whether it be evil: knowing God will bring all
things into Judgment. For this reason I believe in the sole,
unique, peculiar religion of Individualism, first & foremost.
Sincerely,
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRpGe2ZljD7YrHM/nEQIObACg7U4mHUSRHVqKvQsLhFsd8UV+bNkAoJMT
MiXOvPEjRgzlAW+nG10kFOIa
=oQA9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
The_Man
No.
MitchAlsup
nonsensical--just like most of your tripe.
Day Brown
> Since there is no evidence for souls existing, the question itself is
> nonsensical--just like most of your tripe.
Just because you are unaware of evidence does not mean it can not
exist.
BOTOH, the Bagavad Gita says that some of what you see are divinely
created and animated forms which only exist, like the monsters in a
video game, as a challenge to the fulfillment of your Kharma.
The Gita calls these forms "Avatars". The thing about an Avatar is,
that while you may learn from one, you cannot teach one anything. Like
cosmic robots or androids, they are programmed to know what they know,
respond as they do, and dont need to have souls to do that. Nor do
they need to be programmed to think that souls exist. So of course,
arguing with an Avatar is an utter waste of time.
There could also be Avatars that go about ranting about scripture.
Same deal.
Eugene Griessel
>On Jul 9, 12:06 pm, MitchAlsup <MitchAl...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Since there is no evidence for souls existing, the question itself is
>> nonsensical--just like most of your tripe.
>
>Just because you are unaware of evidence does not mean it can not
>exist.
Granted. However souls have been postulated for many thousands of
years by the species Homo sapiens - possibly tens of thousands looking
at some of the older burial sites. Despite this there exists to date
no verifiable, testable evidence. So I would assume the statistical
possibility that they indeed do exist is pretty small indeed.
Eugene L Griessel
Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>Just because you are unaware of evidence does not mean it can not
>exist.
He didn't say that it couldn't exist. He said that in the absence of any
evidence, the question is nonsensical. That's certainly true from a
scientific standpoint, and these are science forums.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Androcles
"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:46927a00...@news.uunet.co.za...
: Day Brown <dayb...@hughes.net> wrote:
:
: >On Jul 9, 12:06 pm, MitchAlsup <MitchAl...@aol.com> wrote:
: >> Since there is no evidence for souls existing, the question itself is
: >> nonsensical--just like most of your tripe.
: >
: >Just because you are unaware of evidence does not mean it can not
: >exist.
:
: Granted. However souls have been postulated for many thousands of
: years by the species Homo sapiens - possibly tens of thousands looking
: at some of the older burial sites. Despite this there exists to date
: no verifiable, testable evidence.
A body without a soul is a dead body and is either cremated or buried.
"I think, therefore I am" -- the soul of Rene DesCartes.
There can be no greater proof for the existence of souls.
It is the idea of them existing without a body that is ridiculous.
I have a body. I AM a soul.
: So I would assume the statistical
: possibility that they indeed do exist is pretty small indeed.
Your assumption is ridiculous, the evidence for the existence
of souls is overwhelming. You'll be telling us next that computers
don't have sofware.
:
: Eugene L Griessel
:
: Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
To be paid.
Eugene Griessel
>A body without a soul is a dead body and is either cremated or buried.
>"I think, therefore I am" -- the soul of Rene DesCartes.
>There can be no greater proof for the existence of souls.
>It is the idea of them existing without a body that is ridiculous.
>I have a body. I AM a soul.
The proof you offer is equally valid for tooth fairies and Santa
Claus.
>
>: So I would assume the statistical
>: possibility that they indeed do exist is pretty small indeed.
>
>
>Your assumption is ridiculous, the evidence for the existence
>of souls is overwhelming.
Present soe of this overwhelming proof - physical, rather than the
philosophical postulations so far offered.
>You'll be telling us next that computers
>don't have sofware.
A non sequitur. Any more strawmen to offer?
Eugene L Griessel
The difference between genius and stupidity
is that genius has its limits.
Chris L Peterson
Griessel) wrote:
>Present soe of this overwhelming proof - physical, rather than the
>philosophical postulations so far offered.
I don't think you two are in disagreement. He's simply giving a
Cartesian definition of the soul- basically, another name for the ego,
self, etc. I don't think many people would argue that this "soul"
doesn't exist, since we all experience it first hand.
The analogy to software is a good one: this Cartesian soul is not a
thing, but a process. Without a brain, it doesn't exist.
Androcles
"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
: "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
:
: >A body without a soul is a dead body and is either cremated or buried.
: >"I think, therefore I am" -- the soul of Rene DesCartes.
: >There can be no greater proof for the existence of souls.
: >It is the idea of them existing without a body that is ridiculous.
: >I have a body. I AM a soul.
:
: The proof you offer is equally valid for tooth fairies and Santa
: Claus.
Perhaps so, but I've never met a tooth fairy or Santa Claus, I wouldn't
know. I've met many souls, though. Bodies without a soul soon rot,
which is why we cremate or bury them.
:
: >
: >: So I would assume the statistical
: >: possibility that they indeed do exist is pretty small indeed.
: >
: >
: >Your assumption is ridiculous, the evidence for the existence
: >of souls is overwhelming.
:
: Present soe of this overwhelming proof - physical, rather than the
: philosophical postulations so far offered.
Show me a physical number such as 2 or 3, or produce a physical image
on a TV screen. I would never claim souls or computer software are
"physical", but they clearly exist.
: >You'll be telling us next that computers
: >don't have sofware.
:
: A non sequitur.
Why, do you claim software doesn't exist, then?
What's non sequitur about comparing software
with hardware, soul with body?
All I did was give the id, ego, self, awareness or whatever it is
called a name, and that name is "soul".
Show me some physical software, dickhead.
: Any more strawmen to offer?
It's your strawman that you set up, claiming souls do not exist.
Are you too fuckin' stupid to realise that when you cease to be,
your body will cease to be a short time after? The generic term
we use for quasi-intelligent "you" (and others) that is NOT physical
is "soul".
:
:
: Eugene L Griessel
:
: The difference between genius and stupidity
: is that genius has its limits.
As you've proven without any prompting.
Androcles
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:pp55939827pt0innk...@4ax.com...
: On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:33:57 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
: Griessel) wrote:
:
: >Present soe of this overwhelming proof - physical, rather than the
: >philosophical postulations so far offered.
:
: I don't think you two are in disagreement. He's simply giving a
: Cartesian definition of the soul- basically, another name for the ego,
: self, etc. I don't think many people would argue that this "soul"
: doesn't exist, since we all experience it first hand.
:
: The analogy to software is a good one: this Cartesian soul is not a
: thing, but a process. Without a brain, it doesn't exist.
The difference between us is that I use the term "soul" literally, he
uses it as an inference to disembodied "spirits", associating it with
religious crap of continued life after the demise of the body -- yet
"spirit" is just another term for soul.
It's the very thing that we mean by "life" as distinct from a cadaver
twitching because it has an electric current jolting through it.
Software can be "immortal" if run on a different computer
a thousand years from now.
Likewise the soul COULD be immortal if its pattern could
be recorded and replayed on a different "brain" with the same
FUNCTIONAL neural network. I don't claim to know HOW to
that, I'm merely saying it is not impossible.
But like everyone else I'll just lay down and die, letting the medical
profession prolong my life, always losing in the end, not bothering
to think of actually DEFEATING the Grim Reaper in an intelligent
manner.
Humming a few bars in a church and talking to "god", then trotting
off to heaven to collect your wings, halo and harp to sing hosannas
to his name for the rest of eternity isn't exactly a promising outlook
for a rational soul, Min and the bible thumpers are welcome to it.
So no, I do not believe in the immortality of the soul as the question
in the thread title asks, but I do believe it possible. To do that,
first define what a soul IS.
"Cogito, ego sum". That establishes my existence.
But WHAT am I?
I am a soul.
But WHAT is a soul?
It's a program. Copy it and run it on another machine.
If we can map the human genome, then we map a brain. Mine is on
offer once I'm gone to oblivion. Take it, slice it with a laser, map all
neurones and synapses. The goal is to resurrect ME, and I have
nothing to lose.
"If we knew what we were doing it would not be called research, would it?" -
Albert Einstein.
Eugene Griessel
>On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:33:57 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
>Griessel) wrote:
>
>>Present soe of this overwhelming proof - physical, rather than the
>>philosophical postulations so far offered.
>
>I don't think you two are in disagreement. He's simply giving a
>Cartesian definition of the soul- basically, another name for the ego,
>self, etc. I don't think many people would argue that this "soul"
>doesn't exist, since we all experience it first hand.
No, I don't think they would - but I do argue that there is vast
difference between what is generally understood as the "the spiritual
or immaterial part of a human being or animal, often regarded as
immortal" and "a conscious thinking subject" or " the part of the mind
that reacts to reality and has a sense of individuality" as the Oxford
dictionary defines these things.
>
>The analogy to software is a good one: this Cartesian soul is not a
>thing, but a process. Without a brain, it doesn't exist.
True - but it only exists while the brain does. It is not some
external force that enters and leaves a body at birth and death.
Eugene L Griessel
Democracy: Four wolves and a lamb voting on lunch.
mitch
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:pp55939827pt0innk...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:33:57 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
> Griessel) wrote:
>
>>Present soe of this overwhelming proof - physical, rather than the
>>philosophical postulations so far offered.
>
> I don't think you two are in disagreement. He's simply giving a
> Cartesian definition of the soul- basically, another name for the ego,
> self, etc. I don't think many people would argue that this "soul"
> doesn't exist, since we all experience it first hand.
>
> The analogy to software is a good one: this Cartesian soul is not a
> thing, but a process. Without a brain, it doesn't exist.
This guy read Cosmos and Psyche
Paul Schlyter
MitchAlsup <Mitch...@aol.com> wrote:
> Since there is no evidence for souls existing, the question itself is
> nonsensical--just like most of your tripe.
That provides the answer to the question!
Since the soul doesn't exist, it cannot be mortal. And since it's
not mortal, it must be immortal!!!! <g>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Paul Schlyter
Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:33:57 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
> Griessel) wrote:
>
>> Present soe of this overwhelming proof - physical, rather than the
>> philosophical postulations so far offered.
>
> I don't think you two are in disagreement. He's simply giving a
> Cartesian definition of the soul- basically, another name for the ego,
> self, etc. I don't think many people would argue that this "soul"
> doesn't exist, since we all experience it first hand.
>
> The analogy to software is a good one: this Cartesian soul is not a
> thing, but a process. Without a brain, it doesn't exist.
Which brings a new question: is software immortal? :-)
A process can die, sure -- but software isn't merely the process.
Software is also the program describing the process (when you buy a
piece of software in a software store, you're not buying running
processes). And a process which has died can be restarted - possibly
on other hardware.
One can even envision an event like this: a computer dumps its entire
memory image and sends it away by radio to another computer a few
light-months away, then the computer gets its power turned off, which
of course kills all processes on that computer. A few months later, a
big antenna far away receives the memory image, which then gets
transferred to another piece of hardware, and all the processes of the
original computer gets restarted on new hardware. Now, when the
memory image is in transit over the radio wave, after the first
computer had its power turned off and before the target computer has
received the image, is that software dead or alive?
Androcles
"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
: Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
:
: >On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:33:57 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
: >Griessel) wrote:
: >
: >>Present soe of this overwhelming proof - physical, rather than the
: >>philosophical postulations so far offered.
: >
: >I don't think you two are in disagreement. He's simply giving a
: >Cartesian definition of the soul- basically, another name for the ego,
: >self, etc. I don't think many people would argue that this "soul"
: >doesn't exist, since we all experience it first hand.
:
: No, I don't think they would - but I do argue that there is vast
: difference between what is generally understood as the "the spiritual
: that reacts to reality and has a sense of individualityand "a conscious
: that reacts to reality and has a sense of individuality" as the Oxford
: dictionary defines these things.
I find no fault in "the part of the mind that reacts to reality and has a
sense of individuality", but I do take issue with "often regarded
as immortal", even if it is "often regarded". Einstein's relativity is
"often regarded" as valid but is in fact a load of crap. Majority
opinion isn't science and Nature is not a democracy.
: >
: >The analogy to software is a good one: this Cartesian soul is not a
: >thing, but a process. Without a brain, it doesn't exist.
:
: True -
That's an "about turn" from "non sequitur".
: but it only exists while the brain does.
Ok, so souls do exist.
"However souls have been postulated for many thousands of
years by the species Homo sapiens - possibly tens of thousands looking
at some of the older burial sites. Despite this there exists to date
no verifiable, testable evidence." -- Griessel
Have you got the verifiable, testable evidence now of the existence
of souls?
: It is not some external force that enters and leaves a body
: at birth and death.
Ok, a soul is not measured in newtons. Who the hell suggested
such a ridiculous philosophical postulation?
A car is not a balloon, a house is not a fish. BFD!
What things are not is irrelevant, it is what they are that matters.
Engage brain before opening mouth.
copperhead
>
> The Gita calls these forms "Avatars". The thing about an Avatar is,
> that while you may learn from one, you cannot teach one anything. Like
> cosmic robots or androids, they are programmed to know what they know,
> respond as they do, and dont need to have souls to do that.
Day is correct.
And anyone doubting the truth of this statement need only look as far
as usenet for scientific proof of their existence. Trolls...
Avatars... call them what you like.
copperhead
>
> A body without a soul is a dead body and is either cremated or buried.
> "I think, therefore I am" -- the soul of Rene DesCartes.
> There can be no greater proof for the existence of souls.
> It is the idea of them existing without a body that is ridiculous.
Why? Does water need a vessel in which to exist? No. Only to be
contained within for a time, and while in a liquid state.
> I have a body. I AM a soul.
Yes.
copperhead
> True - but it only exists while the brain does. It is not some
> external force that enters and leaves a body at birth and death.
How do you know that? That's like saying that music only exists when
there is a radio and it is turned on. And that's not true. The
signal that carries the music is out there, just waiting for the radio
to be turned on and dialed to the appropriate frequency. If I smash
the radio I can't hear the music, but it doesn't cease to exist.
Have you considered the possibility that souls are just out there all
the time, and all over the universe, and only manifest themselves in a
particular fashion under certain conditions? And we haven't gone very
far outside our own little paradigm here on Earth. Who knows if these
are the only conditions under which a soul might manifest itself.
It's a big universe. Lots of possibilities.
Chris L Peterson
>Which brings a new question: is software immortal? :-)
If you haven't already read it (I suspect you have), you'll certainly
enjoy Hofstadter's _Gödel, Escher, Bach_, which discusses just this sort
of thing. In particular, note the discussion with Einstein's brain.
Eugene Griessel
Radio waves can be detected - so far souls not. If as you posit that
souls float around out there occasionally entering life forms, for as
long as the life forms exist, what controls the assignations? And why
can't these souls remember what happened to them prior to entering a
life form?
Bottom line is that the only evidence we have of souls is supposition
- there is no evidence whatsoever (such as would stand up in a court
of law) that they exist. The evidence for souls is exactly the same
evidence that exists for tooth fairies.
Eugene L Griessel
The only time the world beats a path to your door is if you're in
the bathroom.
Androcles
"copperhead" <copper...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184076922.0...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Present the evidence.
Androcles
: On Jul 9, 1:49 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
:
: >
: > A body without a soul is a dead body and is either cremated or buried.
: > "I think, therefore I am" -- the soul of Rene DesCartes.
: > There can be no greater proof for the existence of souls.
: > It is the idea of them existing without a body that is ridiculous.
:
:
: Why?
The answer to that is quite simple. Software doesn't happen
without a computer. TV images to do not happen without a
box of electronics and a screen. You can transmit them off
into space if you want to, nobody will ever see them again
without a receiver.
Does water need a vessel in which to exist? No. Only to be
: contained within for a time, and while in a liquid state.
Water is a material substance, matter. An idea is not a material substance.
Your analogy is inappropriate.
:
: > I have a body. I AM a soul.
:
:
: Yes.
I'm not water (or carbon, iron, oxygen, hydrogen or any other element
my body is made of). I am a soul.
This is a sci newsgroup, not a religious one.
Isaac Asimov wrote in "Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright" ,
ISBN 0-380-44610-3
(concerning life after death)
If you want to argue the point, present the evidence.
I must warn you, though, that there are some arguments I will not accept.
I won't accept any argument from authority. ("The Bible says so")
I won't accept any argument from internal conviction ("I have faith it is
so")
I won't accept any argument from personal abuse ("What are you, an
atheist?")
I won't accept any argument from irrelevance ("Do you think you have been
put on this Earth just to exist for a moment of time?)
I won't accept any argument from anecdote ("My cousin has a friend who went
to a medium and talked to her dead husband")
And when all that, and other varieties of non-evidence are eliminated, there
turns out to be nothing.
So if you want to argue the point, PRESENT THE EVIDENCE.
mathematician
I noted following (copy below my text) conversation which origin was
really the group alt.messianic.
I noted that "Nomen Nescue" who started this discussion in these news
groups had taken the subject
from there.
My little comment to the question about the subject:
I found on one old H-M's drawing the following remark (definition of
"soul"):
"Only some of the following numbers: 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 neutrinos
grouping
together, are so-called "souls". "
If so due to conservation of lepton number (law of our physics) this
kind of
"soul" ("neutrino soul") is immortal, I believe so ???
I remember that one old writing of mine (about some old H-M's
drawings)
it was mentioned also that human body is a kind of "cage" of this
"soul" ???
Would it be so that if God to releases your "soul" from this "cage"
(for example when you are old enough) then you die ???
Best Regards,
Hannu
---COPY BELOW----
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: thetruth90ca <thetruth9...@yahoo.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Do you believe in the immortality of the soul?
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:59:19 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <1183939159.0...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.99.85.58
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1183939159 7838 127.0.0.1 (8 Jul 2007
23:59:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:59:19 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.12)
Gecko/20070531 Fedora/1.0.9-1.fc6 pango-text SeaMonkey/
1.0.9,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=74.99.85.58;
posting-account=NBri1Q0AAABfA73tXYxNLxvGH2TtM_le
Do you believe in the immortality of the soul?
hey folks I only have Messianics on my list
So I want to hear what your views are on a number of issues
starting with the Immortality of the soul.
Do you believe in the immortality of the soul?
What do you think of the doctrine that Traditional Christianity
says when you die your soul goes directly to heaven if you
are good and directly to hell if you are bad.
I dont believe in billions of judgement days but rather the
person is just dead until Yeshua returns and resurrects the
dead and Judgement is done then. I dont think that man
has an immortal soul but one of the rewards of the saints
is they are given immortality at the resurrection. I dont
believe in eternal punnishing but rather eternal punnishment.
In the end when the smoke clears the unrighteous shall
be ashes under the saints feet.
So please send me your answer please please please
however how brief. Detailed responses is much
appreciated
Shalom
Mike
Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!
local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.wavecable.com!
news.wavecable.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:44:05 -0500
From: "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com>
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
References: <1183939159.0...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Do you believe in the immortality of the soul?
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 22:44:04 -0700
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <FZGdnfluaYU4gQ7b...@wavecable.com>
Lines: 68
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.113.43.72
X-Trace: sv3-
LP6urqPGGPbVaaBAaewCSzQbcV1WuPwA6XKNPWZuGwiReh7MeNo2UDfiC9Gt3eSE09O8xLJaZ0b6Utp!
J6nTg/
gt97hB7I4lLsldG4iuXSuNG0vQfsN9GfxMPRp6uu76ABrHGrsuCEf6fZg5l83F5q52pxTz!
xxtswBp9xodGVt0J
X-Complaints-To: ab...@wavecable.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: a...@wavecable.com
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.35
"thetruth90ca"
> Do you believe in the immortality of the soul?
Yes, I believe that because God's word is inviolable. That
means what God says goes. In the beginning (according to
Genesis) God made man in His own image and likeness. This
means that God intended man to reflect His eternal image. He
meant for man to live forever, reflecting the perfect moral
image of God.
> hey folks I only have Messianics on my list
> So I want to hear what your views are on a number of
> issues
> starting with the Immortality of the soul.
I am not of Jewish background. I'm on this newsgroup because
I have a natural interest in arguing with Jews. Actually, I
have a natural interest in arguing things Christian, period.
So I've simply opted to answer your question, regardless.
> Do you believe in the immortality of the soul?
Again, yes.
> What do you think of the doctrine that Traditional
> Christianity
> says when you die your soul goes directly to heaven if you
> are good and directly to hell if you are bad.
I think Hades is a Greek term expressing the fact that
people are spirits. When we die there is a separation
between our bodies and our spirits. Then it is said that the
spirit goes to the place of the dead, to "Hades."
Christianity says that there are compartments in Hades, a
place for the good and a place for the bad. There is a big
chasm between the two. You might, therefore, say that the
bad go to "Hell," and the Christian to "Heaven." But those
are just synonyms for two separate chambers in the place of
the dead.
> I dont believe in billions of judgement days but rather
> the
> person is just dead until Yeshua returns and resurrects
> the
> dead and Judgement is done then. I dont think that man
> has an immortal soul but one of the rewards of the saints
> is they are given immortality at the resurrection. I dont
> believe in eternal punnishing but rather eternal
> punnishment.
Yes, I've been having a discussion with Jack on just this
subject. You seem to hold to Jack's views quite a bit. He
doesn't believe in the immortal soul, but he does believe in
a single resurrection for judgment. According to Jack, the
righteous live on in resurrected bodies, but the
unrighteous suffer a "second death," which is the eternal
destruction of their existence. I don't agree with him. I
believe our spirit is eternal, whether we are righteous or
unrighteous. And I quite agree. God doesn't beat up the
ungodly for all eternity. "Eternal punishment" in my view is
simply the sentence of the ungodly to a place of isolation
where they cannot fulfill their propensity towards sinning.
randy
Androcles
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:p65793h45jvls9l3b...@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:12:37 GMT, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
:
: >Which brings a new question: is software immortal? :-)
If replayed on suitable hardware at an arbitary time in the future,
then obviously yes. Just don't expect a Macintosh or Apple II
to run this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus.exe
:
: If you haven't already read it (I suspect you have), you'll certainly
Martin Brown
> "copperhead" <copperhead...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1184076474.5...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> : On Jul 9, 1:49 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> : >
> : > A body without a soul is a dead body and is either cremated or buried.
> : > "I think, therefore I am" -- the soul of Rene DesCartes.
> : > There can be no greater proof for the existence of souls.
> : > It is the idea of them existing without a body that is ridiculous.
> :
> : Why?
So far so good. It will be great fun if the demented Min ever gets to
meet his creator - false profits, charlatans and astrologers are
clearly destined to burn forever in Hellfire. That may be not qute
long enough in his case.
>
> The answer to that is quite simple. Software doesn't happen
> without a computer.
Although that claim seems at a common sense level to be self evident
it is far from clear at a quantum mechanical level. And if you admit
to this possibility it is quite possible that we are just in a
simulation of the universe that is running inside some arbitrarily
powerful quantum super computer. In fact itf it is possible to do this
at all then it is far more likley that we are in a simulation than in
the real thing!
> TV images to do not happen without a
> box of electronics and a screen. You can transmit them off
> into space if you want to, nobody will ever see them again
> without a receiver.
Any reasonably mathematical civilisation should get a unique and
unambiguous decoding once they had found the artificial TV signal in
amongst the noise. Their choice of colours might be arbitrary, but
even during WWII it would not have challenged our top mathematicians
to decode an analogue TV style signal into an image.
And just because we need a box to recognise the signal as an image
does not mean that all life forms in the universe are similarly
restricted in their ability to interpret correlated structured
signals.
It gets a lot more hairy after broad spectrum digital broadcasting and
cable become dominant. They either don't leak much or look like noise.
There is only a brief period of about 50 years (if we are any guide)
where civilisations are radio bright with obviously non-thermal
artifical correlated signals leaking out into space at significant
levels.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Ed
GWB is...
An AVATAR?:)
Androcles
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1184095480.4...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
: On Jul 10, 5:40 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > "copperhead" <copperhead...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:1184076474.5...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
: > : On Jul 9, 1:49 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > A body without a soul is a dead body and is either cremated or
buried.
: > : > "I think, therefore I am" -- the soul of Rene DesCartes.
: > : > There can be no greater proof for the existence of souls.
: > : > It is the idea of them existing without a body that is ridiculous.
: > :
: > : Why?
:
: So far so good. It will be great fun if the demented Min ever gets to
: meet his creator - false profits, charlatans and astrologers are
: clearly destined to burn forever in Hellfire. That may be not qute
: long enough in his case.
: >
: > The answer to that is quite simple. Software doesn't happen
: > without a computer.
:
: Although that claim seems at a common sense level to be self evident
: it is far from clear at a quantum mechanical level.
Of course. What you've just said is quantum mechanics is far from clear.
It is far from clear at a bright green flying elephant level, too.
: And if you admit
: to this possibility it is quite possible that we are just in a
: simulation of the universe that is running inside some arbitrarily
: powerful quantum super computer.
Oh, sure. The operator is a bright green flying elephant with
pink spots, right? If you admit possibilities, that is.
Not so very different from Min, are you?
: In fact
Oh! A fact!
Look up, everybody, here a comes a fact!
: itf it is possible to do this
: at all then it is far more likley that we are in a simulation than in
: the real thing!
Dang... it wasn't a fact at all, it was just another stupid
wild conjecture.
Goodbye.
*plonk*
Day Brown
group think, where different avatars can only respond within the
mindframe of their own programming and ignore anything that does not
fit. Both the Christians and their critics seem unaware of the
implications of quantum physics which claims that there are 10 or 11
dimensions... depending on which bishop you listen to.
That souls may not exist within the conventional 3 dimensional time
frame continuum that both fundamentalism and atheism is limited to
seems reasonable, when you try to integrate the effects of other
dimensions, the proofs fall apart. These rants by the avatars on both
sides of this have been going on ever since 2400 baud modems,
blissvully unware that they that are carried out on a monodimensional
string of bits which can penetrate any of the other dimensions. We
simply do not have enough data to go on. Not that this matters to the
Turing machines who keep on ranting.
mathematician
This post did not go to above groups as was mentioned. So I repost it
here to them.
Hannu
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: mathematician <hapor...@luukku.com>
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.skeptic,sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Do you believe in the immortality of the soul?
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:45:04 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 185
Message-ID: <1184085904.1...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 91.154.82.145
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1184085904 6878 127.0.0.1 (10 Jul 2007
16:45:04 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:45:04 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fi; rv:
1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070515 Firefox/2.0.0.4,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=91.154.82.145;
posting-account=NntL4Q0AAAC6Bndf3tBuuqASDBNESqqK
Hi,
Best Regards,
Hannu
---COPY BELOW----
Message-ID: <1183939159.087972.156...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.99.85.58
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1183939159 7838 127.0.0.1 (8 Jul 2007
23:59:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:59:19 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.12)
Gecko/20070531 Fedora/1.0.9-1.fc6 pango-text SeaMonkey/
1.0.9,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
Injection-Info: g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=74.99.85.58;
posting-account=NBri1Q0AAABfA73tXYxNLxvGH2TtM_le
Shalom
Mike
References: <1183939159.087972.156...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Do you believe in the immortality of the soul?
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 22:44:04 -0700
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <FZGdnfluaYU4gQ7bnZ2dnUVZ_uikn...@wavecable.com>
Lines: 68
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.113.43.72
X-Trace: sv3-
LP6urqPGGPbVaaBAaewCSzQbcV1WuPwA6XKNPWZuGwiReh7MeNo2UDfiC9Gt3eSE09O8xLJaZ0b6Utp!
J6nTg/
gt97hB7I4lLsldG4iuXSuNG0vQfsN9GfxMPRp6uu76ABrHGrsuCEf6fZg5l83F5q52pxTz!
xxtswBp9xodGVt0J
X-Complaints-To: a...@wavecable.com
copperhead
> :
> Present the evidence.
X-rays, and other forms of radiation, have been zipping around
continuously for billions of years. Until just a little over 100
years ago they were never detected by humans. Even other frequencies
of light and sound weren't understood very well up until recently in
the overall scheme of things. It doesn't mean they didn't exist, just
that the human species had not devised a method of detecting them.
Although science is based on observation it is limited by available
technologis. As technology evolves, science evolves. What is science
today would've been magic or the basis for a religion not too long
ago. And it may be yet again.
Eugene Griessel
Yes but we did not go around postulating about X-rays as we do about
souls. If we have no means of detecting them - a distinct possibility
- then how do we surmise they exist? They are an invention of the mind
and so far that is the only evidence available.
Eugene L Griessel
A pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist: but an optimist has
more fun and neither can change the march of events.
Androcles
Build an ectoplasm detector, then. Find me a bright green flying
elephant's nest. Broken eggshell from a black hole will do, that's
where they lay their eggs.
Join fuckin' Ghost Busters for all I care, but before I listen to could
be, might be, maybe, should be or any other wild, stupid and crazy
conjecture, PRESENT THE EVIDENCE!
copperhead
> Yes but we did not go around postulating about X-rays as we do about
> souls. If we have no means of detecting them - a distinct possibility
> - then how do we surmise they exist? They are an invention of the mind
> and so far that is the only evidence available.
>
> Eugene L Griessel
>
People have been claiming memories from past lives for hundreds and
maybe thousands of years. Millions of Buddhists and Hindus believe in
some form of reincarnation. Maybe souls don't migrate intact from one
life to the next, but it doesn't mean they don't exist in some form
just because they don't fit into a Judaeo-Christian model of "a soul",
or can't be measured.
>From a scientific standpoint, our consciousness is at lthe very least
a form of electro-chemical energy. Energy can't be created or
destroyed, only altered. So when a body ceases to function, whatever
was creating that consciousness doesn't cease to exist, it just
changes. Maybe we just haven't figured out a way to observe or
measure that change. String theory suggests to me that everything we
experience might very well be an illusion on some level.
And I don't recall saying anywhere that what I believe is a fact,
Professor. Just a possibility. You, on the other hand, state
categorically that you are correct. where is your authority? Where
is your proof? I suggest that you stick to making radios out of
coconuts.
Androcles
: On Jul 11, 10:02 am, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) wrote:
:
: > Yes but we did not go around postulating about X-rays as we do about
: > souls. If we have no means of detecting them - a distinct possibility
: > - then how do we surmise they exist? They are an invention of the mind
: > and so far that is the only evidence available.
: >
: > Eugene L Griessel
: >
:
:
: People have been claiming memories from past lives for hundreds and
: maybe thousands of years. Millions of Buddhists and Hindus believe in
: some form of reincarnation.
Yes, and Catholics believe in angels and virgin births, moslems in
the One God and Allah is his prophet.
What do they all have in common?
They believe the shit they are indoctrinated with as children.
: Maybe souls don't migrate intact from one
: life to the next, but it doesn't mean they don't exist in some form
I think, therefore I am.
That's proof to me that at least one soul exists, I am that soul.
You, on the other hand, cannot prove to me that you are aware
of yourself, and you certainly cannot show you think, although
you demonstrate your hallucinations with all your "maybes".
Then again you could be my hallucination.
However, that would make me "special", the only unique soul
there is, and I consider that to be an irrational thought to be
rejected. If I'm like everyone else then everyone else is like me.
As far as my corporeal body goes that appears to be true, and
so I consider all the other corporeal bodies to occupied by souls.
What makes us different is you are a crazy dreamer, no different
to the millions of Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus and Christians
who believe what they are trained and indoctrinated to believe
and I am a sane and rational engineer without such delusions.
I think for myself.
You sputter what you want to be true, loaded with maybes.
If you want me to believe your crap, then PROVE it.
------Present the evidence.---------
(Or shut the fuck up.)
Paul Schlyter
copperhead <copper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 10:02 am, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) wrote:
>
>> Yes but we did not go around postulating about X-rays as we do about
>> souls. If we have no means of detecting them - a distinct possibility
>> - then how do we surmise they exist? They are an invention of the mind
>> and so far that is the only evidence available.
>>
>> Eugene L Griessel
>
> People have been claiming memories from past lives for hundreds and
> maybe thousands of years. Millions of Buddhists and Hindus believe
> in some form of reincarnation.
If you want to invoke the idea of "majority vote" to settle this
question, well, billions of flies "can't be wrong" - eat shit! <g>
> Maybe souls don't migrate intact from one life to the next, but it
> doesn't mean they don't exist in some form just because they don't
> fit into a Judaeo-Christian model of "a soul", or can't be measured.
The reason most people believe in some kind of souls, or some kind of
afterlife after the physical death, is simple: we're aware that sooner
or later, we will all die. We don't like the idea that some day we'll
cease to exist. To be able to psychologically cope with that, mankind
invented religion and the belief in souls and an afterlife. And
that's the one thing all religions of the world have in common: they
all promise some kind of afterlife after our physical death.
This doesn't imply that souls cannot exist, of course. But it's
also important to point out that there's no real evidence whatsoever
for the existence of souls as entities independent of the bodies
of the individuals. We have absolutely no idea whether they exist
or not - all we can do is to believe, one way or another. Most
people prefer to believe that there are souls, presumably because that
belief is more pleasant than the belief that our person will vanish
completely after our physical death. Since the believers here are
clearly biased, we cannot take the widespread belief in souls as
an indication that the actual existence of souls is probable.
Paul Schlyter
copperhead <copper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Of course there are lots of things unknown to us, part of which will
be discovered by science in the future !!!!
However, that doesn't mean that any current human fantasy will be
confirmed by future science. Since you brought up X-rays: they
weren't anticipated by humans before they were discovered! Can you
find anyone who, before the discovery of X-rays, UV light, or other
forms of invisible EM radiation, envisioned something like
"...extremely blue light, invisible to our eyes..." ???? I don't know
of anything like that - do you?
Human imagination is limited by .... yes .... human imagination.
Future facts discovered by tomorrow's science doesn't have that
limitation - tomorrow's science is limited only by tomorrow's
technology.
Androcles
"Paul Schlyter" <pau...@saaf.se> wrote in message
news:f736c1$24cj$1...@merope.saaf.se...
: In article <1184173437.2...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
An evolutionary requirement for the persistence of a species
is an instinct for self-preservation. Swat at a fly and it will attempt
to escape. Species that lack that instinct become extinct.
The emotional response to danger that we call "fear" and triggers
an adrenalin rush to raise heart rate in preparation of fight-or-flee
is that instinct in action. The quasi-intelligence of the believer-
without-proof causes an attempt to rationalise the emotions.
He doesn't want to face oblivion so he invents his own eternity,
and this in turn leads to mild forms of altruism, wherein he gets
solace from his fellow believers-without-proof who share his
irrationality and provide mental crutches to each other.
There are many religions, they can't all be right, but they are
all based on fear of dying. Islam in particular makes dying
seem to be worth looking forward to. Free virgins in Paradise,
wow! I think I'll be a suicide bomber! Allah akbar.
That's only the instinct of sex, there is nothing rational about it.
It is the reptile brain of those of low intelligence that responds to
emotion.
we cannot take the widespread belief in souls as
: an indication that the actual existence of souls is probable.
:
"I think, therefore I am" - Rene Descartes.
What am I?
*I* own a body, *I* control it. *I* walk, *I* talk.
*I* am not my body. *I* am a...
A rose by any other name...
The existence of at least one soul is proven (to me).
Rene DesCartes no longer thinks.
Rene DesCartes is not.
copperhead
> However, that would make me "special", the only unique soul
> there is,
Yes. You are special. Just like everyone else.
What's REALLY funny is that clowns like you act all superior and talk
to me like I'm some religious nut selling the idea of immortality,
when in fact I'm one of the least religious people you'll ever meet.
All I said was the possibility exists, where you are firm in the
conviction that it does not, although you possess NO special knowledge
to that effect. Only what you believe. So, what makes you fo fekkin'
special? If everyone thought that the world is exactly as they
observe it to be, and there is no possibilty of "other", we'd all be
sitting around in caves picking fleas out of one another's hair and
playing with our own crap.
Nomen Nescio
I understand how you must feel, now that the end of the world
is imminent, and everything that you Anti-Christian Atheists
have built in this world is going to be utterly annihilated,
and your lamentable souls are going to burn in Hellfire, and
the new heaven and new earth won't even remember you & yours. :)
Praise Jesus!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
"Jim Klein" lamented in vain:
>Science
"...Yes, he has been trying to comfort him-
self with these suppositions; but he had
found all in vain. All in vain; because
Death, in approaching him, had stalked
with his black shadow before him, and
enveloped the victim. And it was the
mornful influence of the unperceived
shadow that caused him to feel -- al-
though he neither saw nor heard -- to
feel the presence of my head within the
room...." --Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849)
;::::;
;::::; :;
;:::::' :;
;:::::; ;.
,:::::' ; KKK\
::::::; ; KKKKK\
;:::::; ; KKKKKKKK
,;::::::; ;' / KKKKKKK
;:::::::::`. ,,,;. / / KKKKKKK
.';:::::::::::::::::;, / / KAPPA
,::::::;::::::;;;;::::;, / / GLOOM
;`::::::`'::::::;;;::::: ,#/ / HADES
:`:::::::`;::::::;;::: ;::# / HELL
::`:::::::`;:::::::: ;::::# / DEAD
`:`:::::::`;:::::: ;::::::#/ YOU
:::`:::::::`;; ;:::::::::## KK
::::`:::::::`;::::::::;:::# KK
`:::::`::::::::::::;'`:;::# K
`:::::`::::::::;' / / `:#
::::::`:::::;' / / `#
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRpVNxJljD7YrHM/nEQKiaQCffKHkYo6bV6LdoW4nX14tdEmcht8AnR8n
pXlKYkduz67v6clGxzk0FFbL
=hYmw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Androcles
: On Jul 11, 12:48 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
:
: > However, that would make me "special", the only unique soul
: > there is,
:
:
: Yes. You are special. Just like everyone else.
Oh, thank you.
:
: What's REALLY funny is that clowns like you act all superior and talk
: to me like I'm some religious nut selling the idea of immortality,
: when in fact I'm one of the least religious people you'll ever meet.
: All I said was the possibility exists,
I may be clown to you, but you have to admit the possibility exists
that bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in black holes, Santa
Claus
comes down chimneys once a year and tooth fairies have the ability to
transmute base materials like teeth into metal which they press into
coins with their own teeth and leave under the pillows of small children,
and any other fuckin nonsense you want to dream up in your delirium,
you fuckin' lunatic. Take your possibilities and shove them up your
arse.
: where you are firm in the
: conviction that it does not, although you possess NO special knowledge
: to that effect. Only what you believe.
I have no special knowledge and neither do you, but I don't believe
your "possibility" ravings.
PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE or SHUT THE FUCK UP, lunatic.
So, what makes you fo fekkin'
: special?
If I were fo fekkin' special I'd produce the evidence of my
fo fekkin' specialness.
Do you have any evidence I'm fo fekkin special, or is it just
a possibility I'm fo fekkin' special?
Do you ever bother to read the crap you write?
: If everyone thought that the world is exactly as they
: observe it to be, and there is no possibilty of "other", we'd all be
: sitting around in caves picking fleas out of one another's hair and
: playing with our own crap.
Is that what you do in your spare time, fo fekkin' knucklehead?
copperhead
Take your possibilities and shove them up your arse.
Oh. You're a Brit. I apologize.
Androcles
: On Jul 11, 5:43 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
:
: Take your possibilities and shove them up your arse.
:
:
:
: Oh. You're a Brit. I apologize.
It's "apologise", no z, Yank.
copperhead
>
> It's "apologise", no z, Yank.
We can't help it if you guys don't speak English.
Quadibloc
> Einstein's relativity is
> "often regarded" as valid but is in fact a load of crap.
Huh?
It is proven by experiment. Particles in accelerators, for example,
have their lifetimes lengthened exactly as time dilation predicts.
Only General Relativity remains difficult to test. Special Relativity
has been shown true countless times in all its aspects.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> On Jul 10, 2:06 am, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) wrote:
.
> > True - but it only exists while the brain does. It is not some
> > external force that enters and leaves a body at birth and death.
> How do you know that? That's like saying that music only exists when
> there is a radio and it is turned on. And that's not true. The
> signal that carries the music is out there, just waiting for the radio
> to be turned on and dialed to the appropriate frequency. If I smash
> the radio I can't hear the music, but it doesn't cease to exist.
> Have you considered the possibility that souls are just out there all
> particular fashion under certain conditions? And we haven't gone very
> far outside our own little paradigm here on Earth. Who knows if these
> are the only conditions under which a soul might manifest itself.
> It's a big universe. Lots of possibilities.
We know how radios work; we can look up the radio station in the
telephone book, and find its address. So we know what is going on
there.
On the other hand, while a computer sometimes behaves a bit like a
radio - for example, when it's hooked up to the Internet - we know
that when you do word processing on a computer, or a spreadsheet, the
computer is doing the work itself. It isn't simply displaying on your
screen the results that are taking place in a remote mainframe; it is
a computer itself, not a terminal.
Do we "know" that the reactions of animals to their environments take
place in their own brains, or that those brains simply relay
information from somewhere else?
The answer should be clear enough. Some possibilities are so contrived
that they're hardly worth considering. And yet consciousness is a real
fact that we all observe in every waking moment, and our understanding
of physical systems doesn't seem to leave room for consciousness as a
reality. Could it be that consciousness doesn't exist in the physical
reality of tissues and electrical signals, but in the abstract
mathematical realm of the meanings that nerve impulses represent?
Or in some other realm that lies, as it were, halfway between
electricity and mathematics?
So, while the idea of the brain as a mere radio receiver is absurd,
that a living brain might give rise to, and interact with, a level of
reality intimately connected with, yet beyond, its physicality, might
have some plausibility.
After all, let's look at that PC on your desk again. The silicon chips
and the electricity from the power supply aren't everything it needs
to be useful. It also runs software, made up of letters and numbers
and punctuation marks, or out of zeroes and ones. Those are abstract
symbols, not energy or matter.
And yet this idea of "uploading" people seems to me to be incomplete.
If "I" could be put on the somewhat larger equivalent of a floppy
disk, several different copies of me could be installed in different
artificial brains that aren't connected to each other. There's no
physical reason why any of us would know what any of the others were
thinking or experiencing - so we wouldn't be "the same person", just
copies.
*Your* copy of Notepad - or Teach Text - doesn't know what someone
else is typing into his copy of Notepad, etc., on his computer. You
see on the screen only what you have typed.
This computer concept, therefore, comes closest to the "soul". A
particular copy of a program that is running in one window on a
computer is termed an "executing instance" of the program. That is one
crude way of saying what you and I are; an "executing instance" of our
minds and memories.
Although the interface between the dynamic and the symbolic is still a
place in the real world, and is not "supernatural", it still isn't
quite a part of reality that is terribly well accessible or explored.
John Savard
Ioannis
[snip]
> *Your* copy of Notepad - or Teach Text - doesn't know what someone
> else is typing into his copy of Notepad, etc., on his computer. You
> see on the screen only what you have typed.
It's more complicated than that. There are instances of programs when *they can*
(or rather, you can) inadvertently know what's being typed in another "executing
instance".
Two years ago, a professor at the school I was working at was trying to send an
email only to find that while her keypresses were displayed correctly,
additional foreign streams of characters were also displayed in her email
window. The character streams were coherent, too.
An extended two day investigation by tech support revealed that both this
professor and the president of the math dept in the next room were using
wireless mice and keyboards, as a result of which when both of them were using
text processing programs simultaneously, their keyboards were picking up the
keypresses from each other and were merging them.
Goes to show that under the right circumstances "executing instances" can
"communicate" with each other, a fact all to often observed with identical twins
as well, which oftentimes have similar premonitions about random events or think
alike or reach similar conclusions.
> John Savard
--
I.N. Galidakis --- http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/
Chris L Peterson
>It is proven by experiment. Particles in accelerators, for example,
>have their lifetimes lengthened exactly as time dilation predicts.
>
>Only General Relativity remains difficult to test. Special Relativity
>has been shown true countless times in all its aspects.
GR is not difficult to test. The theory has produced many predictions
which have been tested and confirmed. Some of these observations can be
tricky (frame dragging, for example), but others are not hard at all.
Special relativity, of course, is simply a component of GR, and is
rather trivially tested these days.
Androcles
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:1184322421....@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: Androcles wrote:
: > Einstein's relativity is
: > "often regarded" as valid but is in fact a load of crap.
:
: Huh?
:
: It is proven by experiment. Particles in accelerators, for example,
: have their lifetimes lengthened exactly as time dilation predicts.
Bullshit. In a fair race from the top of the atmosphere to
sea level, a distance of 100,000 metres, the cosmic muon
makes the distance in 2.2 microseconds and decays. It takes
a photon 333 microseconds. Same distance, same clock. Huh!
Cut the crap, the muon is 150 times faster than light. Huh!
The velocity of light is source dependent. Huh!
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Huh!
: Only General Relativity remains difficult to test. Special Relativity
: has been shown true countless times in all its aspects.
Blind faith without proof. You've been conned. Einstein was
the world's leading con-artist. Do you believe in the immortality
of the cosmic muon?
Huh!
Androcles
: On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 03:27:01 -0700, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
:
: >It is proven by experiment. Particles in accelerators, for example,
: >have their lifetimes lengthened exactly as time dilation predicts.
: >
: >Only General Relativity remains difficult to test. Special Relativity
: >has been shown true countless times in all its aspects.
:
: GR is not difficult to test. The theory has produced many predictions
: which have been tested and confirmed. Some of these observations can be
: tricky (frame dragging, for example), but others are not hard at all.
: Special relativity, of course, is simply a component of GR, and is
: rather trivially tested these days.
And fails.
Sagnac passes and has become technology, not a "test".
http://tinyurl.com/yug9hh
Sagnac is not difficult for engineers to understand, but a
physicist lacks a brain and loves bullshit.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Chris L Peterson
<Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>Sagnac passes and has become technology, not a "test".
> http://tinyurl.com/yug9hh
You either don't understand how ring laser gyros work, or you don't
understand GR, if you think the first somehow invalidates the latter.
I suspect you don't understand either.
oriel36
It all has to do with the Equation of Time just as I have
described,the difference between the observed natural noon cycle and
the 24 hour human devised cycle which creates the standard pace on
which all clocks are based.Do you want to hear it from Newton -
"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. "
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm
Poor Isaac did not know that Flamsteed created a phony correlation
between astrological geometry and axial rotation but built his
ballistic agenda on that astrological framework or 'sidereal time' as
incompetent fools call it.
All the rubbish of the last century is the symptoms of a disease which
exists in the late 17th century.It shows up here as the inability to
grasp basic astronomical principles such as the principles which keep
clocks in sync with the axial rotation at 24 hours/360 degrees.
The junk of the last century no longer has any interest as what
happens with all novelistic rubbish but it does one thing - it
highlights the maneuvering of Flamsteed with timekeeping astronomy and
Newton with structural astronomy. and the real damage done by those
pair of clowns.
Androcles
: On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:16:16 GMT, "Androcles"
: <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
:
: >Sagnac passes and has become technology, not a "test".
: > http://tinyurl.com/yug9hh
:
: You either don't understand how ring laser gyros work, or you don't
: understand GR, if you think the first somehow invalidates the latter.
:
: I suspect you don't understand either.
You want a flame war, imbecile?
[Peterson]
: Special relativity, of course, is simply a component of GR, and is
: rather trivially tested these days.
{Androcles}
And fails.
Sagnac passes and has become technology, not a "test".
http://tinyurl.com/yug9hh
I know [not suspect] you are a flaming, snipping, fuckin' idiot
with your head up your arse; the reference was to SR as you know
fuckin' well, you useless cunt, so don't try to imply I related GR
to ring lasers, you lying arsehole.
Hannu Poropudas
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> I understand how you must feel, now that the end of the world
> is imminent, and everything that you Anti-Christian Atheists
> have built in this world is going to be utterly annihilated,
> and your lamentable souls are going to burn in Hellfire, and
> the new heaven and new earth won't even remember you & yours. :)
>
> Praise Jesus!
> Daniel Joseph Minhttp://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
>
I think that you should be carefull what you say due God will possible
judge you with the same judgemet you gave.
Please give the last word to God and do not judge people with your
unbusenesslike writings.
Hannu
"Give the greatest honour to God, only such a way you can
live a happy life, which is the goal of the life."
(Hannu Poropudas)
The Ghost In The Machine
<c...@alumni.caltech.edu>
wrote
on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:05:21 GMT
<335f93p95r8n7050l...@4ax.com>:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:16:16 GMT, "Androcles"
> <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
>>Sagnac passes and has become technology, not a "test".
>> http://tinyurl.com/yug9hh
(refers to
<URL:http://www.meos.com/Photonics%20experiments%20finished%20pages/Laser%20gyroscope.html>
)
>
> You either don't understand how ring laser gyros work, or you don't
> understand GR, if you think the first somehow invalidates the latter.
>
> I suspect you don't understand either.
It makes little difference; such gyros can be considered
to either invalidate SR, or not invalidate SR, for the
simple reason that they are *outside* SR; a rotating
coordinate system is not an inertial reference frame.
Treating them properly within the rotational frame
therefore requires some work. Outside the rotational
frame, it's a simple matter of using Newtonian mathematics,
which works as the observer is immobile with respect to
the framework surrounding the ring.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
There should probably be some consideration of the effect
the beam takes to the eye, as it tilts. If the eye be
positioned on a ray perpendicular to the rotating disc,
however, there shouldn't be much of a problem, as all
rays from the light path are equidistant. There are issues
if one uses a square path.
The confusion, of course, is not limited to our many trolls
(myself included, apparently :-) ). A webpage makes
much the same claim as Androcles that Sagnac somehow
disproves relativity.
http://www.anti-relativity.com/sagnac.htm
While the actual website is rather uninteresting, it does point
to
http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/ring_open.shtml
which is a somewhat crudely-done but valid research website
somewhere in New Zealand; the general idea is to use Sagnac to
estimate and refine the Earth's rotation.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/brain: Permission denied
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:i08nm4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: In sci.physics, Chris L Peterson
: <c...@alumni.caltech.edu>
: wrote
: on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:05:21 GMT
: <335f93p95r8n7050l...@4ax.com>:
: > On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:16:16 GMT, "Androcles"
: > <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: >
: >>Sagnac passes and has become technology, not a "test".
: >> http://tinyurl.com/yug9hh
:
: (refers to
:
<URL:http://www.meos.com/Photonics%20experiments%20finished%20pages/Laser%20gyroscope.html>
: )
:
: >
: > You either don't understand how ring laser gyros work, or you don't
: > understand GR, if you think the first somehow invalidates the latter.
: >
: > I suspect you don't understand either.
:
: It makes little difference; such gyros can be considered
: to either invalidate SR, or not invalidate SR, for the
: simple reason that they are *outside* SR; a rotating
: coordinate system is not an inertial reference frame.
Part of (Einstein's) SR:
"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly,
by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of
the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
So much for your "inertial frame" crap.
The bastard didn't realise we'd have an atomic clock at McMurdo Sound
and another in Denver.
This is NOT an "inertial frame" and never will be:
http://hands-on-cern.physto.se/ani/acc_lhc_atlas/lhc_atlas.swf
Cut the bullshit, Ghost, there are no inertial frames and Einstein
never once said "inertial" in his paper.
Or to put it another way, using Idiot Roberts' teminology, the domain
of applicability of SR is the empty set.
: Treating them properly within the rotational frame
: therefore requires some work. Outside the rotational
: frame, it's a simple matter of using Newtonian mathematics,
: which works as the observer is immobile with respect to
: the framework surrounding the ring.
:
: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
:
: There should probably be some consideration of the effect
: the beam takes to the eye, as it tilts. If the eye be
: positioned on a ray perpendicular to the rotating disc,
: however, there shouldn't be much of a problem, as all
: rays from the light path are equidistant. There are issues
: if one uses a square path.
Handwaving crap. Both are discussed here.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
:
: The confusion, of course, is not limited to our many trolls
: (myself included, apparently :-) ). A webpage makes
: much the same claim as Androcles that Sagnac somehow
: disproves relativity.
All your handwaving proves zilch, Mr Inertial Frame.
: http://www.anti-relativity.com/sagnac.htm
:
"Proof of aether" -- hahahaha!
Sagnac is proof of source dependence, not aether.
: While the actual website is rather uninteresting, it does point
: to
:
: http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/ring_open.shtml
:
: which is a somewhat crudely-done
VERY crudely done, not even animated.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.gif
: but valid research website
Oh, you mean they got money.
: somewhere in New Zealand; the general idea is to use Sagnac to
: estimate and refine the Earth's rotation.
The Earth's rotation cannot be refined, only measured.
Ex-Republican
Why is it that 99 out of every 100 articles injected into
usenet through googlegroups.com, is either spam or trolls?
Ex-Republican,
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
Sock-puppet "Hannu Poropudas" trolled:
><snipped the usual>
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
--William of Ockham (~1300-1349)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRpjaC5ljD7YrHM/nEQLRQQCeK0UkAmziRtbGJUyUgENKn+ZopLIAoM+u
7tHNiZQVq60zMGe6mw3juhMr
=9oC9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----