Humans do not have a 'soul' = an immaterial and immortal 'essence'
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

alt.philosophy Profile…
 Up
Re: Humans do not have a 'soul' = an immaterial and immortal 'essence'         


Author: Pastor Dave
Date: Sep 22, 2008 03:12

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:32:20 -0700, "Lorrie S."
yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>There is no soul. Only biological functioning.
>If you believe in souls, then you believe in magic.

In other words, if you say so, then that's the way it is.

Yes folks, that's how it is, because Lorrie said so!
And we must all pay homage to her, because she
is the great one who can think for us and knows
not how to err in her thinking!

Yes! All bow to her, because it is only her mind
that can think clearly and only she is capable of
judging God!

And do not argue this point! Because it is ridiculous
to think that she is deluded for thinking that she is
smarter than a Being who can create a universe
and make it function properly!
>If you believe in magic, then you are not rational
>and cannot be taken seriously in any debate.
Show full article (2.64Kb)
no comments
Re: Humans do not have a 'soul' = an immaterial and immortal 'essence'         


Author: John Jones
Date: Sep 22, 2008 14:27

Lorrie S. wrote:
> There is no soul. Only biological functioning. If you believe in souls,
> then you believe in magic. If you believe in magic, then you are not
> rational and cannot be taken seriously in any debate.
>
>

There is no biological functioning. Matter has no function. If you
believe in rationality then you believe that matter has functions and
you cannot be taken seriously in debate.
no comments
Re: Humans do not have a 'soul' = an immaterial and immortal 'essence'         


Author: Rick
Date: Sep 22, 2008 15:24

On Sep 19, 6:06 am, "Carl Sagan's billions" yahoo.com>
wrote:
> When I was younger I struggled very hard and for several years
> trying to understand Christianity, God, Jesus, Satan, Genesis, etc.
>

I think that there isn't much difference between religion and
religious philosophy.

If you consider the Old Testament, was an eye for an eye and a tooth
for a tooth.
Revenge basically.

And then the New Testament is, no, we are smarter than that now, more
evolved than that, revenge is not the way to go.
Who would want to inflict revenge on someone? Thats not crime and
punishment, thats not rehabilitation, its redoing the wrong that was
done.
So two wrongs don't make a right.

Thats all it is pretty much.
Show full article (7.63Kb)
no comments
Re: Humans do not have a 'soul' = an immaterial and immortal 'essence'         


Author: THE BORG
Date: Sep 22, 2008 15:38

"Carl Sagan's billions" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:186e4a7a-253f-4aca-bcd7-1baf248774a8@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> When I was younger I struggled very hard and for several years
> trying to understand Christianity, God, Jesus, Satan, Genesis, etc.
>

Once you realize that all that religious stuff are jokes by Advance Alien
Intelligence - mocking and making fun and taking the piss out of humans -
then it all makes sense - really it does.
It is BRILLIANT!
You should get to know these aliens - they are REAL - they are VISIBLE and
they are very very funny.
Their alien jokes and sense of humour have taken over Earth!
And the religions are not all they have done.
THE BORG
no comments
Re: Humans do not have a 'soul' = an immaterial and immortal 'essence'         


Author: bigfletch8
Date: Sep 22, 2008 20:54

On Sep 22, 8:12 pm, Pastor Dave _gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:32:20 -0700, "Lorrie S."
> yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>
>>There is no soul.  Only biological functioning.
>>If you believe in souls, then you believe in magic.
>
> In other words, if you say so, then that's the way it is.
>
> Yes folks, that's how it is, because Lorrie said so!
> And we must all pay homage to her, because she
> is the great one who can think for us and knows
> not how to err in her thinking!
>
> Yes!  All bow to her, because it is only her mind
> that can think clearly and only she is capable of
> judging God!
>
> And do not argue this point!  Because it is ridiculous
> to think that she is deluded for thinking that she is ...
Show full article (3.08Kb)
no comments
Re: Humans do not have a 'soul' = an immaterial and immortal 'essence'         


Author: chazwin
Date: Sep 23, 2008 03:33

On Sep 19, 6:06 am, "Carl Sagan's billions" yahoo.com>
wrote:
> When I was younger I struggled very hard and for several years
> trying to understand Christianity, God, Jesus, Satan, Genesis, etc.
>
> I tried to come to grips with the basic doctrines, the core beliefs
> and ideas, the real essence of Christianity, the various teachings,
> as well as the contradictions in Old versus New Testament.
>
> What was the truth? Why? What did it all mean?
> Why all these stories? Why were 66 old Jewish books bundled into
> a Western bible. Why and how did Christianity and Islam arise from
> Judaism? Why did God require his son to die for us at a wooden
> cross, where did the fall in the Garden of Eden come from,
> who was Satan, where is heaven, who or what is God, etc., etc.,
> questions and questions and more questions.
>
> I also tried to understand the behavior of so-called Christian
> nations, colonizing or wreaking havoc in non-Christian countries
> (and now again conducting horrible colonial wars on non-Christian ...
Show full article (19.83Kb)
no comments
Re: Humans do not have a 'soul' = an immaterial and immortal 'essence'         


Author: chazwin
Date: Sep 23, 2008 03:34

On Sep 19, 6:54 am, "Leo Sgouros" archangels.mil> wrote:
> "Sean" now.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:48d337f1$0$4454$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>
>
>> "Carl Sagan's billions" yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:186e4a7a-253f-4aca-bcd7-1baf248774a8@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>> When I was younger I struggled very hard and for several years
>>> trying to understand Christianity,
>
>> Well, that was your first mistake. :)
>
>> From that, everything else below follows.
>
> So did you end up Islamic, or what?Or is the problem with that and Judaism
> up next in your narrative?

Did you not read the rest of the the posting?
Show full article (1.17Kb)
no comments
Re: Humans do not have a 'soul' = an immaterial and immortal 'essence'         


Author: chazwin
Date: Sep 23, 2008 03:38

On Sep 21, 11:32 pm, "Lorrie S." yahoo.com> wrote:
> There is no soul. Only biological functioning. If you believe in souls,
> then you believe in magic. If you believe in magic, then you are not
> rational and cannot be taken seriously in any debate.

Indeed. The soul is a device to replace the lack of understanding, by
which primitive folk sought to understand "that which changed" upon
the death of another creature. The soul is thus that animating
principle that has "departed".
Today we can switch off the TV and have a better metaphor for death.
no comments
Re: Humans do not have a 'soul' = an immaterial and immortal 'essence'         


Author: chazwin
Date: Sep 23, 2008 03:40

On Sep 22, 12:29 am, "bigflet...@gmail.com" gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sep 21, 11:11 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> Rationality does not ENSURE more humanity, but in my
>>> opinion it is a more promising path than non-rationality.
>
>> Sagan coped with his puritanical beliefs by obsessionally developing and
>> promoting rational gadgets.
>
> A bit like DaVinci ?
>
> BOfL

Did Sagan have "puritanical" beliefs? If so, what would they have
been, exactly and did he admit to them?
no comments
Re: Humans do not have a 'soul' = an immaterial and immortal 'essence'         


Author: Reddragonf66
Date: Sep 23, 2008 03:53

On 23 sep, 12:40, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 12:29 am, "bigflet...@gmail.com" gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 21, 11:11 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Rationality does not ENSURE more  humanity, but in my
>>>> opinion it is a more promising path than non-rationality.
>
>>> Sagan coped with his puritanical beliefs by obsessionally developing and
>>> promoting rational gadgets.
>
>> A bit like DaVinci ?
>
>> BOfL
>
> Did Sagan have "puritanical" beliefs? If so, what would they have
> been, exactly and did he admit to them?

+= narrow minded
no comments
1 2