Does the Atheist have a soul? (269)
We all have a soul - synonymous with spirit, regardless of whose description or
definition of theirself is.
I'll be the first to state how ridiculous this whole argument is.
The premise of my belief system is UNITY. Heal separation. If anyone doubts this -
it is a soul searching discovery that you will be working on within yourSelf. You'll
come to the corrected conclusion at some point in consciousness.
definition of theirself is.
I'll be the first to state how ridiculous this whole argument is.
The premise of my belief system is UNITY. Heal separation. If anyone doubts this -
it is a soul searching discovery that you will be working on within yourSelf. You'll
come to the corrected conclusion at some point in consciousness.
------ This thread is Archived ------
It is a striking fact that nearly all languages of the world, extinct as well as extant, have — or have had — words which could be rendered as 'spirit' or 'soul' in English, At first glance, it would seem that this is a good argument in favor of the real existence of souls and spirits. For, would it not be improbable that so many different peoples and languages could be mistaken? If many different unrelated languages have independently invented words for soul, is that not a good reason to believe they did so because there really is such a thing?
I think not. The first clue to the solution of this puzzle comes from etymology, the study of word origins.
While the origin of the English word soul is obscure, the word almost certainly had its origin in a word which meant 'breath' or 'wind' or 'air', or something like that. The word spirit — generally a synonym for soul — comes from the Latin spiritus, and clearly meant 'breath' originally. Spiritual and respiratory both derive from the same root!
Moreover, if we check in the Greek and Hebrew bibles to see which words are translated as 'soul', etc., in the King James Version, we will find many whose literal meaning is 'breath' or 'wind'. For example, the Hebrew word neshamah (literally meaning 'breath') is twice rendered as 'spirit', once as 'soul'. The Hebrew-Aramaic word ruach (lit., 'wind') is rendered 240 times as 'spirit', six times as 'mind.' The word nephesh (lit., 'breath') is rendered 'soul' 428 times) 'mind' 15 times, 'ghost' twice, and 'life' 119 times. Turning to the Greek Bible, we find pneuma (lit., 'breath') rendered as 'ghost' 91 times (including the rendering 'Holy Ghost'), 292 times as 'spirit'. The reader will recognize the same root in the word pneumonia, a word referring to a disease of the organs of breath. And finally, in this somewhat pedantic parade of words, we may note the important word psyche. As expected, its literal meaning is 'breath.' As we might have guessed, it is rendered as 'soul' 58 times, 'mind' three times, and life' 40 times.
The fact that nearly all words now meaning 'soul', 'spirit', 'life', etc., trace their origins to words meaning 'breath' or 'wind' leads me to conclude that the derived meanings were an outgrowth of the inability of primitive people to solve a basic biological puzzle, namely, what constitutes the difference between a live body and a dead one?
I think not. The first clue to the solution of this puzzle comes from etymology, the study of word origins.
While the origin of the English word soul is obscure, the word almost certainly had its origin in a word which meant 'breath' or 'wind' or 'air', or something like that. The word spirit — generally a synonym for soul — comes from the Latin spiritus, and clearly meant 'breath' originally. Spiritual and respiratory both derive from the same root!
Moreover, if we check in the Greek and Hebrew bibles to see which words are translated as 'soul', etc., in the King James Version, we will find many whose literal meaning is 'breath' or 'wind'. For example, the Hebrew word neshamah (literally meaning 'breath') is twice rendered as 'spirit', once as 'soul'. The Hebrew-Aramaic word ruach (lit., 'wind') is rendered 240 times as 'spirit', six times as 'mind.' The word nephesh (lit., 'breath') is rendered 'soul' 428 times) 'mind' 15 times, 'ghost' twice, and 'life' 119 times. Turning to the Greek Bible, we find pneuma (lit., 'breath') rendered as 'ghost' 91 times (including the rendering 'Holy Ghost'), 292 times as 'spirit'. The reader will recognize the same root in the word pneumonia, a word referring to a disease of the organs of breath. And finally, in this somewhat pedantic parade of words, we may note the important word psyche. As expected, its literal meaning is 'breath.' As we might have guessed, it is rendered as 'soul' 58 times, 'mind' three times, and life' 40 times.
The fact that nearly all words now meaning 'soul', 'spirit', 'life', etc., trace their origins to words meaning 'breath' or 'wind' leads me to conclude that the derived meanings were an outgrowth of the inability of primitive people to solve a basic biological puzzle, namely, what constitutes the difference between a live body and a dead one?
------ This thread is Archived ------
To the ancient authors of the Bible — men who still thought they were living on a flat earth beneath a solid sky (firmament) — the solution seemed deceptively simple: living things breathe, dead things do not. At first, only animals (from Latin anima, meaning 'breath' or 'breeze' originally) were considered fully alive. The case of plants was viewed with confusion for a long time. Some authorities considered them live, others did not. The ancients did not realize that 'souls' were really only a gaseous mixture of nitrogen and oxygen, contaminated with varying amounts of water vapor, carbon dioxide, noble gases, and — depending upon what one ate and whether or not one brushed after every meal — varying amounts of aromatic substances!
In the Genesis Creation Myth, the animating power of breath is clearly depicted. God, after having molded Adam from the dust, has to breathe into him the breath of life in order for him to become a living soul. Breath is life.
The manner in which breath became equated with life is not difficult to discern. A person newly dead, say, of a heart attack, anatomically is not much different from what he was like before he died. He still has five fingers per hand, a tongue in his mouth, a brain in his head, and a heart in his breast. The ancients, unconscious of the microcosmic fever of chemical marriages and divorces that we call metabolism, could see only one obvious difference: the lack of breath of the dead.
When a man expired (lit., 'breathed out'), his spirit (lit., 'breath') left his body, and he died. When a man sneezed, his spirit was forcefully ejected from his body, and one had to say "God bless you" or make a magical gesture, such as the sign of the cross, very quickly, before evil spirits could come to take over the momentarily spiritually vacant carcass. Demonic "possession" was the result, quite simply, of inhaling one or more of the evil breaths thought to hover in the air around us. For early Christians, the Devil's breath was everywhere.
Of course, not all possession was necessarily evil. People could become "inspired" - that is, the breath of a god could take over their bodies to deliver words of wisdom or apocalyptic admonitions. Indeed, the origin of the Christian church itself was thought to have originated in an act of mass possession by the Holy Ghost ("Holy Breath" in the Greek text!). In Acts 4:31 we read that when the Apostles and others "had ended their prayer, the building where they were assembled rocked, and all were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness." (Given the close association of words with breath - thought to be life itself — is it any wonder that religions of all kinds have always focused on the magical significance of words?)
Lest anyone still think the link between breath and the foundations of Christianity be doubtful, attention is drawn to the tale running through John 20:22. Jesus has come back to visit the Disciples to tell them that he is sending them out to forgive or not forgive the sins of the world. "Then he breathed on them, saying, 'Receive the Holy Spirit!' " Right from the beginning, Christianity was based upon warm breath — which in time became hot air.
In the Genesis Creation Myth, the animating power of breath is clearly depicted. God, after having molded Adam from the dust, has to breathe into him the breath of life in order for him to become a living soul. Breath is life.
The manner in which breath became equated with life is not difficult to discern. A person newly dead, say, of a heart attack, anatomically is not much different from what he was like before he died. He still has five fingers per hand, a tongue in his mouth, a brain in his head, and a heart in his breast. The ancients, unconscious of the microcosmic fever of chemical marriages and divorces that we call metabolism, could see only one obvious difference: the lack of breath of the dead.
When a man expired (lit., 'breathed out'), his spirit (lit., 'breath') left his body, and he died. When a man sneezed, his spirit was forcefully ejected from his body, and one had to say "God bless you" or make a magical gesture, such as the sign of the cross, very quickly, before evil spirits could come to take over the momentarily spiritually vacant carcass. Demonic "possession" was the result, quite simply, of inhaling one or more of the evil breaths thought to hover in the air around us. For early Christians, the Devil's breath was everywhere.
Of course, not all possession was necessarily evil. People could become "inspired" - that is, the breath of a god could take over their bodies to deliver words of wisdom or apocalyptic admonitions. Indeed, the origin of the Christian church itself was thought to have originated in an act of mass possession by the Holy Ghost ("Holy Breath" in the Greek text!). In Acts 4:31 we read that when the Apostles and others "had ended their prayer, the building where they were assembled rocked, and all were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness." (Given the close association of words with breath - thought to be life itself — is it any wonder that religions of all kinds have always focused on the magical significance of words?)
Lest anyone still think the link between breath and the foundations of Christianity be doubtful, attention is drawn to the tale running through John 20:22. Jesus has come back to visit the Disciples to tell them that he is sending them out to forgive or not forgive the sins of the world. "Then he breathed on them, saying, 'Receive the Holy Spirit!' " Right from the beginning, Christianity was based upon warm breath — which in time became hot air.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Modern biologists, unlike the ancient makers of myths, know that all the phenomena of living systems can be reduced to physical and chemical terms. They have no evidence of any 'vital force' or mystical spirit — and no need to seek for such. They recognize the fully alive body and the newly dead body to be but two arbitrary points along a continuum of decreasing organization.
So much for spirit, soul, and ghost. Originally denoting breath or wind, they are words which have acquired a host of mystical connotations as prescientific people attempted to account for the difference between life and death. But what of the word mind? Does it refer to anything real? Or is it, too, a fabulous entity?
Unlike the analysis of spirit and soul, the analysis of mind is not at all simple. This is so largely through the grammatical accident that in all the European languages, ancient as well as modern, the word mind is a noun.
We tend to think of nouns as substantive: table, chair, and plumb-bob are all nouns, and all are substantial. There are many words, however, which though grammatically nouns, are not at all substantial. Words like beauty, truth, and velocity would be examples. Unfortunately, our thinking tends to be hedged around by the grammar and hidden assumptions of the language with which we think. And so it happens again and again that abstract nouns come to be thought of as representing things just as substantial as those represented by common nouns. And thus we have the basic confusion necessary to found philosophical systems such as Plato's — whose perfect triangularity exists in triangle-heaven, and so on.
Because mind was a noun, it was conceived to be a thing. Because it was thought to be a thing, it was thought to have existence apart from the brain. Because it has independent existence, it was thought capable of survival after the death of the body. And millions thought that to be good reason to invest millions in that greatest of all businesses, religion
So much for spirit, soul, and ghost. Originally denoting breath or wind, they are words which have acquired a host of mystical connotations as prescientific people attempted to account for the difference between life and death. But what of the word mind? Does it refer to anything real? Or is it, too, a fabulous entity?
Unlike the analysis of spirit and soul, the analysis of mind is not at all simple. This is so largely through the grammatical accident that in all the European languages, ancient as well as modern, the word mind is a noun.
We tend to think of nouns as substantive: table, chair, and plumb-bob are all nouns, and all are substantial. There are many words, however, which though grammatically nouns, are not at all substantial. Words like beauty, truth, and velocity would be examples. Unfortunately, our thinking tends to be hedged around by the grammar and hidden assumptions of the language with which we think. And so it happens again and again that abstract nouns come to be thought of as representing things just as substantial as those represented by common nouns. And thus we have the basic confusion necessary to found philosophical systems such as Plato's — whose perfect triangularity exists in triangle-heaven, and so on.
Because mind was a noun, it was conceived to be a thing. Because it was thought to be a thing, it was thought to have existence apart from the brain. Because it has independent existence, it was thought capable of survival after the death of the body. And millions thought that to be good reason to invest millions in that greatest of all businesses, religion
------ This thread is Archived ------
phoenix: From one paddy to another...what word would you use...
If I had to pick just one I would choose ignorant
------ This thread is Archived ------
I would still say there is a breath of essence that touches our heart
that is mixed with
hot air.
that is mixed with
hot air.------ This thread is Archived ------
Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Hence the breath of life we have denoted as the soul. The ultimate gift from the Creator, a portion of himself to allow us to experience his wonderful creation in full.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Hence the breath of life we have denoted as the soul. The ultimate gift from the Creator, a portion of himself to allow us to experience his wonderful creation in full.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Dusty45: We all have a soul - synonymous with spirit , regardless of whose description or
definition of theirself is.
I'll be the first to state how ridiculous this whole argument is.
The premise of my belief system is UNITY. Heal separation. If anyone doubts this -
it is a soul searching discovery that you will be working on within yourSelf . You'll
come to the corrected conclusion at some point in consciousness.
definition of theirself is.
I'll be the first to state how ridiculous this whole argument is.
The premise of my belief system is UNITY. Heal separation. If anyone doubts this -
it is a soul searching discovery that you will be working on within yourSelf . You'll
come to the corrected conclusion at some point in consciousness.
------ This thread is Archived ------
BarrenPneuma: Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Hence the breath of life we have denoted as the soul. The ultimate gift from the Creator, a portion of himself to allow us to experience his wonderful creation in full.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Hence the breath of life we have denoted as the soul. The ultimate gift from the Creator, a portion of himself to allow us to experience his wonderful creation in full.
Now is that from the first ore the second version of how the earth was created in the bible ???
------ This thread is Archived ------
crotalus_p: Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness Now is that from the first ore the second version of how the earth was created in the bible ???
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness Now is that from the first ore the second version of how the earth was created in the bible ???
crotalus, please explain the two versions you speak of. copy/paste is accepted.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Pascals Wager was an apologetics type attempt to discredit the use of reason - once a person has seen through this game then the concept of 'soul' is of little use and most Atheists will proudly claim that indeed they dont have such a 'man made construct' - Im personally pretty happy to say that I just dont know what happens after death - death being the only feasible use for the invention of 'soul' as in, without a soul, how would your god be able to judge you at the pearly gates?, very convenient hey.........
we generally prefer different terms which actually make use of reason, granted, faith is a much easier way to live and takes little conviction to live by what a person has always accepted - reason is so much more of a challenge though and I personally find it infinitely rewarding in its own right to question, question and question some more - one last point before i go to the cut n paste, not having souls does not equal 'bad people'...........
From The Positive Atheism website;
As materialists, we atheists hold that matter is fundamental. Whatever else may exist, if it exists, it depends on matter. Thus, if mind exists, it must be a function of matter. This is the view of many of the ancient Greeks, many of whom taught that death was the absence of life: Epicurus said:
Why should I fear death? If I am,
death is not. If death is, I am not.
Why should I fear that which
cannot exist when I do?
I prefer the materialistic view of consciousness for two reasons. First, we have not found any reason to believe that anything other than particles exist; this is the view of the physicists who study physical matter down to the particle level: all is the matter-energy continuum. Secondly, we have not found any way for a "soul" to interact with the physical brain. Other reasons which push me to lean in this direction include the fact that when a human sustains certain specific brain damage, we can predict how this will affect that person's personality and that person's ability to function.
The classic study in how brain damage can affect judgement is that of Phineas Gage, who suffered a meter-long steel rod being shot through the center of his skull as the result of an explosion. Gage, formerly a polite, dignified man, suddenly developed a very coarse personality and lost most of his friends as a result.
contd;
we generally prefer different terms which actually make use of reason, granted, faith is a much easier way to live and takes little conviction to live by what a person has always accepted - reason is so much more of a challenge though and I personally find it infinitely rewarding in its own right to question, question and question some more - one last point before i go to the cut n paste, not having souls does not equal 'bad people'...........
From The Positive Atheism website;
As materialists, we atheists hold that matter is fundamental. Whatever else may exist, if it exists, it depends on matter. Thus, if mind exists, it must be a function of matter. This is the view of many of the ancient Greeks, many of whom taught that death was the absence of life: Epicurus said:
Why should I fear death? If I am,
death is not. If death is, I am not.
Why should I fear that which
cannot exist when I do?
I prefer the materialistic view of consciousness for two reasons. First, we have not found any reason to believe that anything other than particles exist; this is the view of the physicists who study physical matter down to the particle level: all is the matter-energy continuum. Secondly, we have not found any way for a "soul" to interact with the physical brain. Other reasons which push me to lean in this direction include the fact that when a human sustains certain specific brain damage, we can predict how this will affect that person's personality and that person's ability to function.
The classic study in how brain damage can affect judgement is that of Phineas Gage, who suffered a meter-long steel rod being shot through the center of his skull as the result of an explosion. Gage, formerly a polite, dignified man, suddenly developed a very coarse personality and lost most of his friends as a result.
contd;
------ This thread is Archived ------
I think Descartes was the last scientist-philosopher to seriously posit the existence of an immaterial "soul." The big question by then was how would the "soul" interact with the brain? Descartes suggested the pineal gland because it appeared to him to be the only organ in the brain that was not bilaterally duplicated. He also believed (erroneously) that this gland was uniquely human. This gland was called the "third eye" by ancient people and was thought to have mystical powers. Modern occult and New Age practitioners still attach a great deal of mystique to the pineal gland, its only "sin" is that of being complex and difficult to pin down. There is nothing to show it to have magical or supernatural powers other than the ignorance of certain people prompting them to jump to premature conclusions when they cannot find easy, simplistic answers.
Spinoza abandoned Descartes's mind-body dualism for a double-aspect system. By this he meant that the mental and the physical are simply different aspects of one and the same substance. Nevertheless, Spinoza thought that mental occurrences can determine only other mental occurrences and physical motions can determine only other physical motions. Leibniz preferred "psychophysical parallelism," retaining both the dualism of mind and body and the idea that mental and physical events are correlated, while avoiding the idea that there is a causal connection between mind and body. Gall worked on a theory assuming that one's mental abilities were fixed, and that one's abilities were based on size of one's cerebral organ. Although his assumptions were flawed, Gall laid the foundations for a biologically based, functional psychology.
Flourens was the first to demonstrate that brain function is localized, and he came to this idea through criticism of Gall's conclusions, while admiring Gall's methods of studying skills and relating them to the size and shape of the cerebrum. It was Flourens who distinguished between sensation and perception (calling perception the subject's appreciation of a sensation or the meaning given to it). During his career of studying brain function through surgical procedures, he localized sensory function in several related sub-cortical structures. However, damage to the cerebrum, Flourens noted, affected higher mental functions (perception; intellect; will). Most surprising to Flourens was his discovery that the severity of the damage to the higher mental functions varied only with the extent of damage to the cerebrum, and, unlike the senses, was not determined by the location of the damage.
By now, it was becoming clear that the brain itself is what causes us to sense, to feel, to think, to judge, and to experience emotions.
contd;
Spinoza abandoned Descartes's mind-body dualism for a double-aspect system. By this he meant that the mental and the physical are simply different aspects of one and the same substance. Nevertheless, Spinoza thought that mental occurrences can determine only other mental occurrences and physical motions can determine only other physical motions. Leibniz preferred "psychophysical parallelism," retaining both the dualism of mind and body and the idea that mental and physical events are correlated, while avoiding the idea that there is a causal connection between mind and body. Gall worked on a theory assuming that one's mental abilities were fixed, and that one's abilities were based on size of one's cerebral organ. Although his assumptions were flawed, Gall laid the foundations for a biologically based, functional psychology.
Flourens was the first to demonstrate that brain function is localized, and he came to this idea through criticism of Gall's conclusions, while admiring Gall's methods of studying skills and relating them to the size and shape of the cerebrum. It was Flourens who distinguished between sensation and perception (calling perception the subject's appreciation of a sensation or the meaning given to it). During his career of studying brain function through surgical procedures, he localized sensory function in several related sub-cortical structures. However, damage to the cerebrum, Flourens noted, affected higher mental functions (perception; intellect; will). Most surprising to Flourens was his discovery that the severity of the damage to the higher mental functions varied only with the extent of damage to the cerebrum, and, unlike the senses, was not determined by the location of the damage.
By now, it was becoming clear that the brain itself is what causes us to sense, to feel, to think, to judge, and to experience emotions.
contd;
------ This thread is Archived ------
As for the existence of "souls," only ancient legends tell us that "souls" exist. Modern science is not showing us anything that would lead us in the direction of that belief. However, some ideas die hard. One reason people persist in believing in "souls" is because we don't want to die. If death means the destruction of the body, then the only way we could possibly survive the death of our bodies would be for our "Selves" to be a non-physical function -- a "soul." This holds either for the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic model of Heaven and resurrection as well as the Eastern and spiritualistic model of reincarnation: either way pretty much requires for the "soul" to exist. So, any evidence that anybody can make even remotely convincing will be hauled on to the lectern and used to reassure the common people that they are not going to die, but that they will continue to live through their "soul."
But science is not saying this. Science does not talk about "souls" because nobody is discovering anything that would lead us to think that "souls" exist. Rather, almost everything we learn about the human mind points to the likelihood that everything there is about our conscious, aware "Selves" is contained in the brain and nervous system. The implication is grave: if you destroy the nervous system (upon death), then your "Self" becomes destroyed as well. "You" cease to be, not only physically but in every other conceivable aspect as well. Some people just don't want to accept this. They want to be able to see Papa again. They don't want to think that little Maria, who died in infancy, never got to live her only chance at life.
Nobody wants to think these things!
So we convince ourselves that Papa is safe in the arms of God and that little Maria gets to grow up and become a lovely woman in Heaven. And our desire to think these things is so great (our fear of thinking that death is final -- that is, that "souls" don't exist) that it does not take much "evidence" to convince us that "souls" really do exist.
Unfortunately, it sure looks as if "souls" do not exist. I'm sorry, but that's what it looks like when you study all the claims and arguments and look at all the facts without regard to what you want to be true. I don't want to die. I don't want death to be the end. I don't want some robber to come in my front door as I type and kill me for a few dollars and for that to be the end of my only opportunity to ever live! No! I don't want that at all! However, I have, since childhood, committed myself to following truth wherever it may lead.
Perhaps other people are much happier than I because they think they'll see Papa again, because they know little Maria really does get to live a life after all. I am not going to say that they are wrong or that I am better than they are. All I'm saying is that I have looked at this situation desiring to know the truth of the matter, and unfortunately, this is what I think is the situation.
If you can give me reasons to think that "souls" exist, I might become a happier man! But they would need to be strong reasons and they would need to overthrow what I already know which has leaned me toward believing the other way. I do know that I cannot be happy fooling myself, so in order for me to be happy thinking that "souls" exist, I will need to actually think that "souls" exist!
Cliff Walker
Positive Atheism Magazine
Six years of service to
people with no reason to believe
But science is not saying this. Science does not talk about "souls" because nobody is discovering anything that would lead us to think that "souls" exist. Rather, almost everything we learn about the human mind points to the likelihood that everything there is about our conscious, aware "Selves" is contained in the brain and nervous system. The implication is grave: if you destroy the nervous system (upon death), then your "Self" becomes destroyed as well. "You" cease to be, not only physically but in every other conceivable aspect as well. Some people just don't want to accept this. They want to be able to see Papa again. They don't want to think that little Maria, who died in infancy, never got to live her only chance at life.
Nobody wants to think these things!
So we convince ourselves that Papa is safe in the arms of God and that little Maria gets to grow up and become a lovely woman in Heaven. And our desire to think these things is so great (our fear of thinking that death is final -- that is, that "souls" don't exist) that it does not take much "evidence" to convince us that "souls" really do exist.
Unfortunately, it sure looks as if "souls" do not exist. I'm sorry, but that's what it looks like when you study all the claims and arguments and look at all the facts without regard to what you want to be true. I don't want to die. I don't want death to be the end. I don't want some robber to come in my front door as I type and kill me for a few dollars and for that to be the end of my only opportunity to ever live! No! I don't want that at all! However, I have, since childhood, committed myself to following truth wherever it may lead.
Perhaps other people are much happier than I because they think they'll see Papa again, because they know little Maria really does get to live a life after all. I am not going to say that they are wrong or that I am better than they are. All I'm saying is that I have looked at this situation desiring to know the truth of the matter, and unfortunately, this is what I think is the situation.
If you can give me reasons to think that "souls" exist, I might become a happier man! But they would need to be strong reasons and they would need to overthrow what I already know which has leaned me toward believing the other way. I do know that I cannot be happy fooling myself, so in order for me to be happy thinking that "souls" exist, I will need to actually think that "souls" exist!
Cliff Walker
Positive Atheism Magazine
Six years of service to
people with no reason to believe
------ This thread is Archived ------
We might as well claim that an Atheist is NOT alive,that he does not possess that Lifeforce.
Some Kind of Automaton.
I am suspending Judgment on that whole "Soul-Thing" until they have ran some of those tests at CERN in Geneva.
Some BIG Surprises might be awaiting us.
Some Kind of Automaton.
I am suspending Judgment on that whole "Soul-Thing" until they have ran some of those tests at CERN in Geneva.
Some BIG Surprises might be awaiting us.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: We might as well claim that an Atheist is NOT alive,that he does not possess that Lifeforce.
Some Kind of Automaton.
I am suspending Judgment on that whole "Soul-Thing" until they have ran some of those tests at CERN in Geneva.
Some BIG Surprises might be awaiting us.
Some Kind of Automaton.
I am suspending Judgment on that whole "Soul-Thing" until they have ran some of those tests at CERN in Geneva.
Some BIG Surprises might be awaiting us.
I knew you were amongst the wise ones Conrad
------ This thread is Archived ------
trish123: I knew you were amongst the wise ones Conrad
Hi Trish.------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: Hi Trish.
Hiya Conrad
------ This thread is Archived ------
"...separable, surviving entity... " I've always found this a facinating subject, with major ramifications at many levels of thought. Cohesive energy, possibly staying cohesive by its own will-power. Reincarnation, astro-travel, channeling other beings or past lives.
Can only add that as a 16 year old, I experienced an "out of body" event that is difficult to perceive in any other way but separate, aware, cohesive, energy apart from my body.
Certainly, the electrical energy that can be interpreted as our thought energy exists. It is measured and observed. Can it remain cohesive after biological death? Why not?
"i think, therefore i am"
Can only add that as a 16 year old, I experienced an "out of body" event that is difficult to perceive in any other way but separate, aware, cohesive, energy apart from my body.
Certainly, the electrical energy that can be interpreted as our thought energy exists. It is measured and observed. Can it remain cohesive after biological death? Why not?
"i think, therefore i am"
------ This thread is Archived ------
Hi Trish, the dimentional research is of great interest to me as well. Seems that there is a whole lot of space even at the sub-atomic level, pointing out to me that there is a lot more going on than what our pitifully limited senses can discern.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Cat Calling
Say Anything Again
See It All The Time
So, . . .
One week of the most outrageous GOP leadership!
beauty of the heart
Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
One more reason to vote Democrat....Arizona Supreme Court
Thoughts on Daylight Savings
Trump on Trial
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
The Atheist just doesn't believe in God. You figure it out. And who is to say that God isn't us, ultimately. ?
I would be very bold and say that in all Truth, are are not any real
atheists. (They just think that they are for a while.)
G'nite.
Thats just the Christian concept of soul Dusy - there are others........