Does the Atheist have a soul? ( Archived) (269)

True, but hemlock is a one way trip.

You know, you could be right. After I wrote that I realized using the word 'personalities' was
assumptive and incorrect.

So, dead, or brain dead? Those are my two choices? Man, I'm high on life. I'll pick outside the box,

having a soul isnt about what you beleive. A soul is energy, an aura than can be see with Kerlian photgraphy. That energy surrounds all living things and as I have noted before other things that come to life because of energy, including motors, planets, trees, single celled organisms, dogs, cats, cell phones, the wring in your house, all have and use the same energy.

Belief does not equate to soul, unless your meaning of soul is as abstract and unproveable as a supreme god is and if that is the case you are standing on nothing more than an unsubstantiated "belief". I'm not saying you cant do that either, you can hang your hat where you like, but for me the word enlightenment means 'gaining information', not accepting unsubstantiated ghosts.

There's something out there in those black holes though personally I think they are full of old Hoover vaccuum cleaners, but we'll see..

Maybe we keep the unique sense of ourSelves when we 'transform' (death) and move onto
a different plane. Does anybody know for sure? Will there be surprises for us or we die and
Life moves on for those Others that haven't died yet...(.)?

and on and on and on.

"There's something out there in those black holes though personally I think they are full of old Hoover vaccuum cleaners, but we'll see."

hahaha, you are a very funny person.

It's the unmated sock dimension dude. Be very careful when you go there. I hear they've gotten very hungry in the interim between washing machine and stocking purgatory...

yep, possible... quantum mechanics is also possible (not likely but possible I'm sorry the very notion of quantum anything makes me giggle ) The problem Dusty for me is what prove is there to support that energy/soul/aura somehow retains information? Cells do. Genes do, but these again are physical things and they too lose that information when they die off. (having lost their energy signature)

there's a lot more out there that we don't know. The problem as I see it is presuming to know without information or at least cursory proof, otherwise its a fantasy. Now...I'm not against conceptual notions, fantasies, theories; because they are the catalysts of discoveries. They are kind of like the bait that leads us to look for answers, they are however not the answers themselves and thats the problem.. for me anyway. A notion/concept does not an answer make. God as a supreme being, soul as a ghost, these are notions, not answers.

Well, BnaturAl, you have a *good, er, ah, (whatever)...

I understand where you are coming from. The more we ask questions, the better informed we are.



*soul, heart

Brain dead? I think not.


Bad reactions to LSD are almost certainly dependent on the user. It is becoming increasingly easier to diagnose schizophrenics clinically as patients suffering physical disorders -- these people should be very cautious, if not completely avoidant of truly powerful psychoactive drugs like LSD. There are another class of people who use LSD irresponsibly, ignoring important factors like set and setting -- bad reactions, more acute then chronic, are likely to occur here as well.
Really the only serious physiological concern about LSD use has been that it may cause chromosome damage -- this was first reported by Cohen et al. in 1967. These findings were seldom replicated, and were contradicted by other studies (Loughman et al., 1967; Bender et al., 1968; Pahnke, 1970). In 1977, Maimon Cohen, one of the invesigators who first reported this a decade earlier, stated that no conclusions could be drawn based on existing evidence (Cohen et al., 1977).