Can a person have two souls?

Religions > Atheism > Can a person have two souls?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 4

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Levy Oates"
Date:	20 Nov 2003 01:21:06 AM
Object:	Can a person have two souls?

Last week's New Scientist reported on several people who's body contains two
separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began to form
embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or twins
would result. However in the case of the people in question the two embryos
fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
Now in Christian doctrine (or at least, in Catholic doctrine) the soul is
created at the point of conception. As two fertilised eggs were present then
that means two souls - right? So which soul now inhabits the body of the grown
individual?
For an atheist, such as myself, this is merely a curious and fascinating piece
of science, but it seems to me that it creates a dilemma of sorts for
Christians. Neither embryo has died. Yet there is only one conscious, living
human being. There is only one person making choices, sometimes presumably
between good and evil choices. How can one consciousness dictate the fate of two
souls?
I don't see how it is possible to make an authoritative pronouncement on this
from a Christian point of view, but I would be interested to see the discussion
that ensues.
Thinking about subjects like this can have a profound impact on all of us. It
could affect the Christian views of embryos, at what point embryos should be
called human beings and the point at which they should be afforded the
protection of the law. Any change in Christian thinking would have implications
for public policy on stem cell research, fertility treatment, abortion etc.
I'm cross posting this to:
alt.atheism, (home)
alt.religion.christian, and
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
I'll probably only look out for replies in the alt.atheism group though. So if
the Christians want to carry out a conversation behind my back - then you know
what to do :)
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.

User: "mich"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	12 Dec 2003 05:59:58 PM

"Paavo P" <etunimi.keskinimi.takanimi@sserveri.fi> wrote in message
news:UhgCb.4788$k4.108513@news1.nokia.com...

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:krgitvg914ompv0635df7bdsa9jf8os7a8@Pern.rk...

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:11:24 -0500, "mich" <mich@efni.com> posted in
alt.atheism:

Idea of having multiple souls or spirits or ghost is not so rare. Many
Finnish related peoples believed that there were several souls.
Like one walking behind you as a shadow and if it would get lost person
would get sick. And there were so called "bird soul" living in the head
between skull and head skin. This soul was the one which fly away when
person died (you can see reference to this in Carelian rock
paintings.There's injured looking person having figure of bird over him

and

there's line drawn connecting head of the person and the bird).

Yes, there are several theories of what the soul is or is not; but speaking
of ghosts (spirits), there maybe a difference between it and the soul, as
most religions speak of body, soul and spirit. I'm not trying to pretend to
know what life (soul) actually is.
Life is indeed a mystery, and I just accept the teachings of the church
concerning the soul, which is not a very developed
doctrine.
Andre
.

User: "Hypatia Kosh"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	13 Dec 2003 12:13:10 AM

"mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message news:<vtklkpb9m14e85@corp.supernews.com>...

"Paavo P" <etunimi.keskinimi.takanimi@sserveri.fi> wrote in message
news:UhgCb.4788$k4.108513@news1.nokia.com...

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:krgitvg914ompv0635df7bdsa9jf8os7a8@Pern.rk...

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:11:24 -0500, "mich" <mich@efni.com> posted in
alt.atheism:

and

there's line drawn connecting head of the person and the bird).

Cool! Reminds me of the two souls in Egyptian mythology, the ba and
the ka.

Wow. I'd answer you but I can't make heads nor tails of that muddle.

Life is indeed a mystery, and I just accept the teachings of the church
concerning the soul, which is not a very developed
doctrine.

Life is a lot less of a mystery with science -- and without forcing
your thoughts into 2000 year old patterns mistranslated into modern
terms.
Originally spirit meant breath. You took in your first breath when you
were born, and gave out your last breath when you died. Thus spirit
(as in inspiration, expire, suspire) was associated with life. This
was the simple observation of primitive peoples.
Later philosophers in the classical period came up with this silly
dualistic theory of mind, and invented fanciful afterlives. (Primitive
peoples had boring afterlives, like Hades and Hel, where lethargic
(get it?) shades rested after life.)
Modern people are still attached to this ridiculous meme, which both
modern science and common sense show to be an utter fallacy. If our
mind is a "soul" (a "ghost in the machine") then why do we suffer
brain damage? Or dementia in old age?
Give it up. When you die, you die. Better that you did something
worthwhile with your life before that happens.
-Hypatia Kosh
--
"Counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor . . ?
Death's too good for them." -- Douglas Adams
.

User: "mich"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	13 Dec 2003 11:05:29 AM

"Hypatia Kosh" <berli@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:fb1e5579.0312122213.6959a431@posting.google.com...

"mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message

news:<vtklkpb9m14e85@corp.supernews.com>...

"Paavo P" <etunimi.keskinimi.takanimi@sserveri.fi> wrote in message
news:UhgCb.4788$k4.108513@news1.nokia.com...

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:krgitvg914ompv0635df7bdsa9jf8os7a8@Pern.rk...

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:11:24 -0500, "mich" <mich@efni.com> posted in
alt.atheism:

Cool! Reminds me of the two souls in Egyptian mythology, the ba and
the ka.

The definition of ba is very close to the definition of the soul as ka is
close to what we view as being the spirit.

Yes, there are several theories of what the soul is or is not; but

speaking

of ghosts (spirits), there maybe a difference between it and the soul,

most religions speak of body, soul and spirit. I'm not trying to pretend

know what life (soul) actually is.

Wow. I'd answer you but I can't make heads nor tails of that muddle.

yet, ba and ka was revealing?

Life is a lot less of a mystery with science -- and without forcing
your thoughts into 2000 year old patterns mistranslated into modern
terms.

What is life, then; we would all love to know....do not speak of
"characteristics" of life, because, this, we know.
As we know much "about" electricity, while having no clue as to what it
actually is.

Originally spirit meant breath. You took in your first breath when you
were born, and gave out your last breath when you died. Thus spirit
(as in inspiration, expire, suspire) was associated with life. This
was the simple observation of primitive peoples.

Yes, and the bible speaks of the face of God...without taking this
literally.
Nobody denies that respiration and the heart beat has been seen then, as it
is now attributes to what is alive; neverthless, these are also symbolic to
what is considered spiritual, unseen.You need not to accept this, of course,
but how is it that according to you, those who accept it are to be seen as
ignorant?

Modern people are still attached to this ridiculous meme, which both
modern science and common sense show to be an utter fallacy.

Therefore, according to your reasoning, scientists are not allowed to have
faith, since science has shown (proved)
that all of this is utter fallacy.What is your contribution to the
scientific world, and how do you explain those scientists
who do believe in God? If there are great scientists, many of whom
contributed in Quantum physics, who freely acknowledge their belief in God,
wouldn't this make your statement, "modern science and common sense show to
be an utter fallacy",an utter fallacy?

If our
mind is a "soul" (a "ghost in the machine") then why do we suffer
brain damage? Or dementia in old age?

A ghost in a machine might be a supericial explanation of what life is in
any way you look at it. Such analogy can be used by atheists themselves.
There is a contradiction everyone notices when one looks at a dead body in a
casket. A person, once so full of life, has become as a rock. His "anima" is
no longer within him/her. Therefore even atheist will use symbolic language
for what they observe...He/she is gone.
To believe this person is nevertheless still conscious, is a belief, which
needs not to be followed, but for those who do follow such belief, I don't
see where the non-believers have the right and knowledge to claim that such
belief is a fallacy. You need proof to make such a statement, something
which you don't have.
According to relativity, if a person would be capable of travelling at the
speed of light, such person would be "eternal"...
that is not religion, but science. The problem is that no mass has the
capacity to travel at the speed of light as it would take an infinite amount
of energy to produce such an effect.
Now, you, as all the great scientists, do not know what life is; if life,
is a form of light, as the scriptures hint, life is eternal.
True, we don't know this, but you do not know it is not...

Give it up. When you die, you die. Better that you did something
worthwhile with your life before that happens.

-Hypatia Kosh

....and if I continue to believe...what's it to you?
Andre
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	13 Dec 2003 10:23:05 PM

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:05:29 -0500, "mich" <mich@efni.com> posted in
alt.atheism:

Nobody denies that respiration and the heart beat has been seen then, as it
is now attributes to what is alive; neverthless, these are also symbolic to
what is considered spiritual, unseen.You need not to accept this, of course,
but how is it that according to you, those who accept it are to be seen as
ignorant?

How is it that those who accept ignorant assertions are seen as
ignorant? That question could only come from someone who is ignorant.

If there are great scientists, many of whom
contributed in Quantum physics, who freely acknowledge their belief in God,
wouldn't this make your statement, "modern science and common sense show to
be an utter fallacy",an utter fallacy?

No. Please show how this could be so. Other than asserting it, of
course.

To believe this person is nevertheless still conscious, is a belief, which
needs not to be followed, but for those who do follow such belief, I don't
see where the non-believers have the right and knowledge to claim that such
belief is a fallacy. You need proof to make such a statement, something
which you don't have.

No, YOU need to prove your assertion that something lives on after
physical death. We don't need proof to refuse to accept your baseless
assertion.

According to relativity, if a person would be capable of travelling at the
speed of light, such person would be "eternal".

Only due to a difference in definition, as it were. The person would
still die, just after infinite time.

The problem is that no mass has the
capacity to travel at the speed of light as it would take an infinite amount
of energy to produce such an effect.
Now, you, as all the great scientists, do not know what life is; if life,
is a form of light, as the scriptures hint, life is eternal.

Since it isn't, it isn't.

True, we don't know this, but you do not know it is not...

We may not know what life is - but we do know some of the things it
isn't and, since life exists in total darkness, life isn't any form of
light.

Give it up. When you die, you die. Better that you did something
worthwhile with your life before that happens.

...and if I continue to believe...what's it to you?

Nothing - as long as you don't try to push that belief on anyone else,
or try to change their lives in any way due to that belief. Your
freedom to believe ends where anyone else begins.
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	12 Dec 2003 09:37:05 PM

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:59:58 -0500, "mich" <mich@efni.com> posted in
alt.atheism:

I'm not trying to pretend to know what life (soul) actually is.

That's good, because the word "soul" has never actually been defined.

Life is indeed a mystery, and I just accept the teachings of the church
concerning the soul, which is not a very developed
doctrine.

It's just an assertion and not worth any more than any other
assertion.
--
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus
was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine,[1615, during the trial of Galileo]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	13 Dec 2003 09:33:13 PM

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:57:08 GMT, "Paavo P"
<etunimi.keskinimi.takanimi@sserveri.fi>, Message ID:
<UhgCb.4788$k4.108513@news1.nokia.com> wrote in alt.atheism;

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:krgitvg914ompv0635df7bdsa9jf8os7a8@Pern.rk...

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:11:24 -0500, "mich" <mich@efni.com> posted in
alt.atheism:

How interesting. Thank you, Paavo.

Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.

User: "mich"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	12 Dec 2003 12:53:22 PM

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:krgitvg914ompv0635df7bdsa9jf8os7a8@Pern.rk...

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:11:24 -0500, "mich" <mich@efni.com> posted in
alt.atheism:

So slime mold colonies have souls. Now the question is this: Does
each cell have a separate soul? Does the entire colony have one soul?
How does it work?

In my opinion, a living organism is a soul, since the soul is life itself.
There are many different kinds of life forms. A cell has life, which enables
it to function; it maybe a specialized cell taking share in a more complex
mechanism, such as a muscle; therefore yes, a muscle is a lifeform more
complex than each individual cells. An ant colony is what I believe to be an
incorporel living organism, which is more complex than each single ant.
I don't know how it works, do you understand what life truly is, or do
you, like the rest of us, associate life as having certain characteristics.
What about a virus? Is it alive? if it is, then it might be possible that
even a rock has life, if the rock has an important part to play in the
preservation and growth of a living organism. Have you ever heard of Gaya?
That is what I meant
when I that stated my "personal" opinion being "everything" is possible
unless otherwise proven.

Do you put out milk every night so as not to anger the "little
people"? Or do you claim that they don't really exist?

Do you follow all the Levitical Laws, just in case they're still in
effect?

Or are you saying that the only possibility we should accept unless
proven false is your brand of belief?

Who said anything about "accepting" a certain belief? I am "not" an
atheist; therefore I don't personally accept your form
of reasoning. Nevertheless, I do accept the possibility of your opinion
being right, since I have no proof otherwise.
On the other hand, you seem to "know" as a fact that God doesn't
exist....without having proof??? very unscientific indeed.
Andre
.

User: "Hypatia Kosh"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	13 Dec 2003 12:16:32 AM

"mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message news:<vtk3m06ifq0kfd@corp.supernews.com>...

On the other hand, you seem to "know" as a fact that God doesn't
exist....without having proof??? very unscientific indeed.

Since this entire world functions as if your "God" doesn't exist--I
don't need any God in physics, or chemistry, or any other science; I
do not see any evidence of "God's hand" in human affairs or
Nature--then parsimony tells us to reject the God hypothesis.
Your "God" is a pretty amazing and logically contradictory critter.
I'm sorry, but an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.
But you don't have any proof. Not even a little bit. So I'm afraid I
must toss "God" in the dustbin and move on to more pressing matters,
not to mention more practical ones.
-Hypatia Kosh
--
"Counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor . . ?
Death's too good for them." -- Douglas Adams
.

User: "mich"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	13 Dec 2003 01:07:52 PM

"Hypatia Kosh" <berli@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:fb1e5579.0312122216.7eac18ec@posting.google.com...

"mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message

news:<vtk3m06ifq0kfd@corp.supernews.com>...

On the other hand, you seem to "know" as a fact that God doesn't
exist....without having proof??? very unscientific indeed.

....the laws of physics,chemistry, or any other science are simply
interpretations of observations to the natural world.
Those laws are not understood at all. The velocity of light is invariant..
explain the law as to why it is so?

Your "God" is a pretty amazing and logically contradictory critter.
I'm sorry, but an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.
But you don't have any proof.

What proofs do we have of the string theory? Are the people who believe in
this theory unreasonable according to you?
I believe the theory of evolution is a valid theory, while recognizing at
the same time the problem involved in missing links.
We ought to have a very great number of transition fossiles identifying the
change of one species to another.What has been found, as of now, is not
enough for what the theory demands.Darwin was the first to claim that this
was a must for his theory to survive.Do you believe in the theory of
evolution "only" because it can explains away the existance of God? If yes,
then you are a very shallow person.
.... Not even a little bit. So I'm afraid I

must toss "God" in the dustbin and move on to more pressing matters,
not to mention more practical ones.

In this, I fully agree with you. If you personally cannot accept the concept
of a God, you personally must toss
this notion in the dustbin. No one is saying differently. If God does indeed
exist, you will eventually know.
But this is a far cry from stating those who do believe are totaly
insane.While these were not your exact words, it is pretty much what I've
read into what you have written.
Andre

-Hypatia Kosh

--
"Counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor . . ?
Death's too good for them." -- Douglas Adams

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	13 Dec 2003 09:36:44 PM

On 12 Dec 2003 22:16:32 -0800,

(Hypatia Kosh), Message
ID: <fb1e5579.0312122216.7eac18ec@posting.google.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;

"mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message news:<vtk3m06ifq0kfd@corp.supernews.com>...

On the other hand, you seem to "know" as a fact that God doesn't
exist....without having proof??? very unscientific indeed.

Since this entire world functions as if your "God" doesn't exist--I
don't need any God in physics, or chemistry, or any other science; I
do not see any evidence of "God's hand" in human affairs or
Nature--then parsimony tells us to reject the God hypothesis.

Your "God" is a pretty amazing and logically contradictory critter.
I'm sorry, but an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.
But you don't have any proof. Not even a little bit. So I'm afraid I
must toss "God" in the dustbin and move on to more pressing matters,
not to mention more practical ones.

Was that from "2 point" or from "3 point" distance?

Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	12 Dec 2003 09:44:05 PM

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:53:22 -0500, "mich" <mich@efni.com> posted in
alt.atheism:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:krgitvg914ompv0635df7bdsa9jf8os7a8@Pern.rk...

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:11:24 -0500, "mich" <mich@efni.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
So slime mold colonies have souls. Now the question is this: Does
each cell have a separate soul? Does the entire colony have one soul?
How does it work?

In my opinion, a living organism is a soul, since the soul is life itself.

So when you die your soul is no more. What, then, goes to heaven?

I don't know how it works, do you understand what life truly is, or do
you, like the rest of us, associate life as having certain characteristics.
What about a virus? Is it alive? if it is, then it might be possible that
even a rock has life, if the rock has an important part to play in the
preservation and growth of a living organism. Have you ever heard of Gaya?
That is what I meant
when I that stated my "personal" opinion being "everything" is possible
unless otherwise proven.

So you believe in leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns and that the
universe was created by Maeve last Thursday - since none of those
possibilities has ever been proven to not be true.

Do you put out milk every night so as not to anger the "little
people"? Or do you claim that they don't really exist?
Do you follow all the Levitical Laws, just in case they're still in
effect?
Or are you saying that the only possibility we should accept unless
proven false is your brand of belief?

Who said anything about "accepting" a certain belief? I am "not" an
atheist; therefore I don't personally accept your form
of reasoning.

YOU said that everything is possible unless otherwise proven. Since
none of the things I mentioned have ever been "otherwise proven", you
must accept them all as possible - according to YOUR form of
reasoning.

Nevertheless, I do accept the possibility of your opinion
being right, since I have no proof otherwise.
On the other hand, you seem to "know" as a fact that God doesn't
exist.

No, I know as a fact that no objective evidence of any god has ever
been presented. Where did I say that I know that there's no god?
--
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.

User: "mich"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	13 Dec 2003 12:18:02 PM

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7d2ltvcl8a8jbe3cbkk7q8cuqlr6bfsm7n@Pern.rk...

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:53:22 -0500, "mich" <mich@efni.com> posted in
alt.atheism:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:krgitvg914ompv0635df7bdsa9jf8os7a8@Pern.rk...

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:11:24 -0500, "mich" <mich@efni.com> posted in
alt.atheism:

In my opinion, a living organism is a soul, since the soul is life

itself.

So when you die your soul is no more. What, then, goes to heaven?

To identify a soul in a box( body) is a good analogy, but, in my opinion
still remains only an analogy.
Water flowing through some pipes, it's velocity, pressure, is a good analogy
for electricity, but is only an analogy as it doesn't explain it's advanced
concepts. Nevertheless, it does explain the basic principles of electricity
and so is being used.
As I mention before, I do not know what life is, and therefore can only
speak of personal opinion.
What if, life does not actually leave, but the universe totaly changes when
death is experienced. Time is a product of the universe, and so, let's say,
that at the moment of death every dimentions of the universe is experienced
at once.Quantum mechanics speaks of the possibility of a number of
dimentions, much greater than three,or four.the possibility of multy
universes, relativity speaks of different frames of reference as
experiencing different relative time flow. Since light travels at c,
it, in a way of speaking, experiences all of this at once....what if life
has similar properties as that of light?

That is what I meant
when I that stated my "personal" opinion being "everything" is possible
unless otherwise proven.

So you believe in leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns and that the
universe was created by Maeve last Thursday - since none of those
possibilities has ever been proven to not be true.

I can and do indeed reject and accept certain beliefs...nevertheless, "if" I
cannot prove the existance of invisible pink unicorn
to be non existant, while some truly believe they exist, I cannot say to
"them" they are wrong, unless I could prove it to be false.I would indeed
show them my reasoning as to why I personally reject it.Notice, that the
invisible pink unicorn can indeed exist if the theory is properly explained.
If the theory speaks of something invisible, and cannot in any ways be
physically observed, nor detected, nor has it any history of some kind,then,
it does indeed exist in the form of a concept.Reality can be subjective or
objective. To claim that only objective relativty is real, is to put a
definition of relatity which quantum mechanics would disagree with.
Now, if a claim is made that the pink unicorn is an objective reality
capable of being experienced when someone praying to this pink unicorn every
night, will receive good luck, I have the right to accept it or reject it.
But, here, the claim is different, for now the pink unicorn can indeed be
experienced, and is no longer a concept only, since it now is an objective
realtiy. If you ask me now, I reject the claim that it exists, but without
stating those who believe as being nonsensical, since I have no way of
proving otherwise. Quantum mechanics speaks of the universe as being weird
to the extant that Bohr said,"if someone doesn't view the claims of quantum
mechanics as being weird, then, they do not know what quantum menchanic
implies.

Who said anything about "accepting" a certain belief? I am "not" an
atheist; therefore I don't personally accept your form
of reasoning.

All as possible outcome, yes, but that doesn't mean that I accept everything
as personally valid theories.
Again, I cannot be an atheist and a theist at the same time. I cannot also
prove either one of these possibilities as being wrong.
Therefore, I accept one possibility, and reject the other one, but without
claiming the other outcome as being impossible...
since I do not have proof.

Nevertheless, I do accept the possibility of your opinion
being right, since I have no proof otherwise.
On the other hand, you seem to "know" as a fact that God doesn't
exist.

No, I know as a fact that no objective evidence of any god has ever
been presented. Where did I say that I know that there's no god?

When you claimed my theory of everything being possible unless proven
otherwise as being erronious; since God cannot be
proven to be non-existant,it must mean that his existance, according to you,
cannot be possible.

--
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic.

Then what is wrong with my theory?
I am convinced that a vivid

consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the

betterment and

ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a

law-giver who

works on the basis of reward and punishment. "

I totally agree that your form of reasoning is a valid one. I understand
your dilema of eternal hell. My personal opinion, is like that of Origen, of
the third century...Every creation of God will return eventually to God as
we have been created all to be with him. nevertheless, it needs to come from
free will, as the bond needs to come from love.
Andre
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	13 Dec 2003 10:40:27 PM

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:18:02 -0500, "mich" <mich@efni.com> posted in
alt.atheism:

As I mention before, I do not know what life is, and therefore can only
speak of personal opinion.

Which concerns no one but you. As I've said, you can believe whatever
damn fool thing you like, but only so far as it doesn't impinge on
anyone else.

What if, life does not actually leave, but the universe totaly changes when
death is experienced.

I've experienced death and the universe didn't change, so your "what
if" doesn't warrant discussion.

Time is a product of the universe, and so, let's say,
that at the moment of death every dimentions of the universe is experienced
at once.

At the moment of death - and after that - nothing is experienced.
Experience is SOLELY for the living, since it occurs by means of a
living brain.

Quantum mechanics speaks of the possibility of a number of
dimentions, much greater than three,or four.the possibility of multy
universes, relativity speaks of different frames of reference as
experiencing different relative time flow. Since light travels at c,
it, in a way of speaking, experiences all of this at once....what if life
has similar properties as that of light?

Since it doesn't, it doesn't.
Anything that hasn't been disproved "may" be, but unless you have some
actual objective evidence to back up your what ifs, no one cares what
you think. But you MUST accept the possibility of leprechauns, and
that what you think of as your god is really Satan. Unless you want
to show the world what a hypocrite you really are.

That is what I meant
when I that stated my "personal" opinion being "everything" is possible
unless otherwise proven.

So you believe in leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns and that the
universe was created by Maeve last Thursday - since none of those
possibilities has ever been proven to not be true.

I can and do indeed reject and accept certain beliefs.

Why reject any - they may be true. According to you.

..nevertheless, "if" I
cannot prove the existance of invisible pink unicorn
to be non existant, while some truly believe they exist, I cannot say to
"them" they are wrong, unless I could prove it to be false.

Since the concept was DESIGNED TO BE false, it is false. (A pink
thing can't be invisible, by the definitions of "pink" and "invisible"
- NO thing can be both.)

Who said anything about "accepting" a certain belief? I am "not" an
atheist; therefore I don't personally accept your form
of reasoning.

All as possible outcome, yes, but that doesn't mean that I accept everything
as personally valid theories.

You said "possible", not "possible outcomes". Are you going to start
weaseling now?

Again, I cannot be an atheist and a theist at the same time. I cannot also
prove either one of these possibilities as being wrong.

Proof is required of existentially positive assertions - it's not
required to disprove anything.

Therefore, I accept one possibility, and reject the other one, but without
claiming the other outcome as being impossible...
since I do not have proof.

IOW you're a salad bar Christian - you accept what you like and reject
what you don't like. According to St. Augustine you're no Christian.

Nevertheless, I do accept the possibility of your opinion
being right, since I have no proof otherwise.
On the other hand, you seem to "know" as a fact that God doesn't
exist.

No, I know as a fact that no objective evidence of any god has ever
been presented. Where did I say that I know that there's no god?

When you claimed my theory of everything being possible unless proven
otherwise as being erronious

1) It's not a theory, it's an assertion.
2) I claimed that your assertion is invalid, not that your god doesn't
exist.

since God cannot be
proven to be non-existant,it must mean that his existance, according to you,
cannot be possible.

No, that since you don't present objective evidence that your god
objectively exists, your assertion that he does must be rejected.
There's a difference.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic.

Then what is wrong with my theory?

Present one and we'll see. So far all you've presented is the
assertion that what can't be proved impossible must be considered
possible. That's false, erroneous and fallacious.

I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "

I totally agree that your form of reasoning is a valid one.

You snipped the attribution. That's Einstein's form of reasoning.

I understand your dilema of eternal hell.

There's no dilemma - it doesn't exist.

My personal opinion, is like that of Origen, of
the third century...Every creation of God will return eventually to God as
we have been created all to be with him. nevertheless, it needs to come from
free will, as the bond needs to come from love.

So all you need do now is present objective evidence that this god
objectively exists. Otherwise your personal opinion is nothing but
nonsense.
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.

User: "mich"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	14 Dec 2003 09:27:53 AM

I would like to apologize for unintentionaly cross-posting. My intention was
never to go to alt.atheism and start an argument.
I thought I was responding to an atheist posting in christian roman
catholic. I will make sure to post only in roman catholic in the future.
Andre
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	13 Dec 2003 09:28:24 PM

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:11:24 -0500, "mich" <mich@efni.com>, Message ID:
<vth9bbb3oooq70@corp.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;

"Richard Smol" <jazzcat@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:2767b33a.0311200258.311aa75b@posting.google.com...

Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:<49porvk00sbh8uicnu9vhcam591t4gmmi4@4ax.com>...

For an atheist, such as myself, this is merely a curious and fascinating

piece

of science, but it seems to me that it creates a dilemma of sorts for
Christians.

A soul is very simply the attribute of a living being. A multi personality
does not make a person having more than one soul.
Take the DNA for example; it is made up of genetic information stemming from
a great vast number of other life form influences, but, imbedded in only one
living being, distinct from all other influences.

This is by far not the only dilemma for theistic religionists. The mere
fact that they can't even provide any shred of evidence for the existence
of their god(s) already is a very big one. I am sure they will find some
sort of cheap cop out for this one, because that is what they usually do,
with or without a lot of pseudo-philosphical broohaha.

RS

If one cannot conceptualize something to be in existance, such as a
universe having more than three dimentions, does this mean that such a thing
"cannot" exist? While it is true that one can take the stand in believing
only that which can be proven,
what is wrong in taking the position that "anything" can be possible unless
proven otherwise?
With such a position, one needs not to accept the existance of God, but
does not view it to be an impossibility unless proven otherwise.

Sorry, but it (God) is an impossibility as things stand at this point
in time.

Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.

User: "Shan"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	11 Dec 2003 04:22:32 PM

The whole post is very sound in my view. It shows maturity of
thinking. Thank you for your post.
shan
"mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message news:<vth9bbb3oooq70@corp.supernews.com>...

"Richard Smol" <jazzcat@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:2767b33a.0311200258.311aa75b@posting.google.com...

Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:<49porvk00sbh8uicnu9vhcam591t4gmmi4@4ax.com>...

For an atheist, such as myself, this is merely a curious and fascinating

piece

of science, but it seems to me that it creates a dilemma of sorts for
Christians.

User: "the cutest atheist"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	25 Nov 2003 05:56:30 AM

"Richard Smol" <jazzcat@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:2767b33a.0311200258.311aa75b@posting.google.com...

Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:<49porvk00sbh8uicnu9vhcam591t4gmmi4@4ax.com>...

Last week's New Scientist reported on several people who's body contains

two

separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began

to form

embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or

twins

would result. However in the case of the people in question the two

embryos

fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.

You're talking about chimeras. Finding a human chimera really is
quite rare.

finding an obvious one of course is quite rare but this NS article showed
that each of us may well be a microchimera, and macrochimeras haven't really
been searched for but rather turned up (because they had different coloured
eyes or the sex organs of both males and females) - and they could well be
as common as twins. I'm sure there's going to be a lot of research on this
topic in the next few years. personally, I can't wait to see the results
<snip>
.

User: "Hypatia Kosh"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	12 Dec 2003 11:52:53 PM

"the cutest atheist" <herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<OrHwb.26707$aT.18715@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

"Richard Smol" <jazzcat@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:2767b33a.0311200258.311aa75b@posting.google.com...

Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:<49porvk00sbh8uicnu9vhcam591t4gmmi4@4ax.com>...

Last week's New Scientist reported on several people who's body contains

two

separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began

to form

embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or

twins

would result. However in the case of the people in question the two

embryos

fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.

You're talking about chimeras. Finding a human chimera really is
quite rare.

Wow, that sounds really cool! Is that the only way you can get a
hermaphrodite? As I understand it, hormonal problems in utero can
cause some weird mutations, but that wouldn't produce a true
hermaphrodite, right? But it could produce a female with a penis-sized
*****. (Which some doctors would "helpfully" cut off, because of course
all women are far more concerned about looking abnormal than, say,
ever experiencing sexual pleasure.)
-Hypatia Kosh
--
"Counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor . . ?
Death's too good for them." -- Douglas Adams
.

User: "Jenny6833A"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	20 Nov 2003 03:02:22 AM

Levy Oates

says

OK.

Now in Christian doctrine (or at least, in Catholic doctrine) the soul is
created at the point of conception.

OK.

As two fertilised eggs were present then
that means two souls - right?

I don't think that follows. Or, if it does, you need to spell it out more
clearly.

So which soul now inhabits the body of the
grown individual?

One, the other, both, or neither.
Make your case before going on.
:-)
Jenny
Before emailing, remove Clothes
.

User: "Levy Oates"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	20 Nov 2003 05:16:43 AM

Now in Christian doctrine (or at least, in Catholic doctrine) the soul is
created at the point of conception.

OK.

As two fertilised eggs were present then
that means two souls - right?

I don't think that follows. Or, if it does, you need to spell it out more
clearly.

OK - I take the "point of conception" to mean the fertilisation of an egg. In
which case what I said does follow. If you think it doesn't follow then you must
think of the point of conception as being something different. What do you take
it to mean?
I thought the whole basis of many Christians' objections to things like abortion
and embryo research was that a fertilised egg already contained a soul. Is this
not the case?
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.

User: "Bill, The Avender"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	20 Nov 2003 06:10:14 PM

In alt.atheism on Thu, 20 Nov 2003 11:16:43 +0000, Levy Oates
<levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

I thought the whole basis of many Christians' objections to things like abortion
and embryo research was that a fertilised egg already contained a soul. Is this
not the case?

No, it's the case. Where I have a lot of fun is in questioning them
about fertilized embryos that were not capable of forming into viable
human beings. Many, many, many times, a fertilized embryo has too
much or too little DNA, or freakish mutations so horrendous that if
you could somehow _force_ it to come to term, you'd end up with
nothing more than a big spongy, brainless "tumor" of some sort, with
no central nervous system and no sensory organs... There are some
people who believe that aborted pregnancies shed souls that go to
Heaven, to be as that person would have been if they had been born.
Well, in the case of these inviable zygotes I describe, that would
mean Heaven is full of all sorts of incomprehensible, grotesque
'things' that resemble nothing even remotely human and that have no
minds or personality. Since most pregnancies terminate before the
woman even knows she's pregnant, Heaven would have to literally be
_filled_ with such mutations. Any "normal" soul would have to wade
through sickly, squishy globules of sponginess - all so the Christian
anti-choicer can comfortably believe the moment of conception is the
moment of soul endowment.
--
L8r,
Bill, the Avender
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
I'm not so impressed with those who can descramble a cable TV signal.
What would _really_ impress me is if they could descramble eggs.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
.

User: "Hypatia Kosh"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	12 Dec 2003 11:48:59 PM

(Bill, The Avender) wrote in message news:<3fc75706.4064206@localhost>...

In alt.atheism on Thu, 20 Nov 2003 11:16:43 +0000, Levy Oates
<levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I thought the whole basis of many Christians' objections to things like abortion
and embryo research was that a fertilised egg already contained a soul. Is this
not the case?

That's a wonderful science fiction vision (and I hope some mad
Japanese director is making an anime movie of that *right now*) but
the early church fathers would have laughed at such nonsense.
Soul, or Spiritus, comes from the word for breath. Thus, a baby was
ensoulated when it first drew breath. The spirit (or "soul") left the
body at its last exhalation (at death). (Cf Mt 27:50)
Furthermore, the Devil could steal the soul from your body when you
yawned, if you didn't cover your mouth, and could also snatch your
soul away when you sneezed. For this reason, people say "God bless
you," when you sneeze, to keep the Devil away. (This is all true!)
So this business about eggs being ensoulated at conception is just
more papal bull.
-Hypatia Kosh
--
"Counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor . . ?
Death's too good for them." -- Douglas Adams
.

User: "Lord Calvert"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	13 Dec 2003 12:49:02 AM

So this business about eggs being ensoulated at conception is just
more papal bull.

Have they ever explained how identical twins get souls? Since there is only one
conception then there should only be one soul, right? Therefore one of the
twins doesn't have a soul and is already damned...or at least can be killed
without consequence because they're not really human.
Of course the hard part is determining which one of the twins has the soul and
which one doesn't.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.

User: "Phylter"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	13 Dec 2003 01:05:19 AM

forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert) astounded us with:
news:20031213014902.15599.00000793@mb-m03.aol.com:

So this business about eggs being ensoulated at conception is just
more papal bull.

Pffft, easy!, the one that ends up in manacles in the basement, fed on
fisheads is the soulless one.
--
Phylter
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attach�
http://www.rudraigh.com/afjc/regulars.html
Change "freeway" to "hotmail" to respond
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	13 Dec 2003 09:25:13 PM

On 13 Dec 2003 07:05:19 GMT, Phylter <Phylter@freeway.com>, Message ID:
<Xns9450998A07F1BSmeagolsbane@192.189.54.177> wrote in alt.atheism;

forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert) astounded us with:
news:20031213014902.15599.00000793@mb-m03.aol.com:

So this business about eggs being ensoulated at conception is just
more papal bull.

Pffft, easy!, the one that ends up in manacles in the basement, fed on
fisheads is the soulless one.

So, what's the Pope's excuse?

Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.

User: "Phylter"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	14 Dec 2003 06:40:04 AM

stoney <stoney@the.net> astounded us with:
news:d0mntvsao1cit3pvngq6r1rcbt8j6k19on@4ax.com:

On 13 Dec 2003 07:05:19 GMT, Phylter <Phylter@freeway.com>, Message ID:
<Xns9450998A07F1BSmeagolsbane@192.189.54.177> wrote in alt.atheism;

forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert) astounded us with:
news:20031213014902.15599.00000793@mb-m03.aol.com:

So this business about eggs being ensoulated at conception is just
more papal bull.

Have they ever explained how identical twins get souls? Since there is
only one conception then there should only be one soul, right?

Therefore

one of the twins doesn't have a soul and is already damned...or at

least

can be killed without consequence because they're not really human.

Of course the hard part is determining which one of the twins has the
soul and which one doesn't.

Pffft, easy!, the one that ends up in manacles in the basement, fed on
fisheads is the soulless one.

So, what's the Pope's excuse?

The Grim Reaper is sitting on the doorstep, biding his time???
--
Phylter
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attach�
http://www.rudraigh.com/afjc/regulars.html
Change "freeway" to "hotmail" to respond
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	16 Dec 2003 10:59:27 AM

On 14 Dec 2003 12:40:04 GMT, Phylter <Phylter@freeway.com>, Message ID:
<Xns9451D252CC4AASmeagolsbane@192.189.54.177> wrote in alt.atheism;

stoney <stoney@the.net> astounded us with:
news:d0mntvsao1cit3pvngq6r1rcbt8j6k19on@4ax.com:

On 13 Dec 2003 07:05:19 GMT, Phylter <Phylter@freeway.com>, Message ID:
<Xns9450998A07F1BSmeagolsbane@192.189.54.177> wrote in alt.atheism;

forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert) astounded us with:
news:20031213014902.15599.00000793@mb-m03.aol.com:

So this business about eggs being ensoulated at conception is just
more papal bull.

Have they ever explained how identical twins get souls? Since there is
only one conception then there should only be one soul, right?

Therefore

one of the twins doesn't have a soul and is already damned...or at

least

can be killed without consequence because they're not really human.

Of course the hard part is determining which one of the twins has the
soul and which one doesn't.

Pffft, easy!, the one that ends up in manacles in the basement, fed on
fisheads is the soulless one.

So, what's the Pope's excuse?

The Grim Reaper is sitting on the doorstep, biding his time???

Will it be a 'race' between the sycthe and the silver hammer?

Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.

User: "Michelle Malkin"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	17 Dec 2003 01:41:54 AM

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:59:27 GMT, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:

On 14 Dec 2003 12:40:04 GMT, Phylter <Phylter@freeway.com>, Message ID:
<Xns9451D252CC4AASmeagolsbane@192.189.54.177> wrote in alt.atheism;

stoney <stoney@the.net> astounded us with:
news:d0mntvsao1cit3pvngq6r1rcbt8j6k19on@4ax.com:

On 13 Dec 2003 07:05:19 GMT, Phylter <Phylter@freeway.com>, Message ID:
<Xns9450998A07F1BSmeagolsbane@192.189.54.177> wrote in alt.atheism;

forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert) astounded us with:
news:20031213014902.15599.00000793@mb-m03.aol.com:

So this business about eggs being ensoulated at conception is just
more papal bull.

Have they ever explained how identical twins get souls? Since there is
only one conception then there should only be one soul, right?

Therefore

one of the twins doesn't have a soul and is already damned...or at

least

can be killed without consequence because they're not really human.

Of course the hard part is determining which one of the twins has the
soul and which one doesn't.

Pffft, easy!, the one that ends up in manacles in the basement, fed on
fisheads is the soulless one.

So, what's the Pope's excuse?

The Grim Reaper is sitting on the doorstep, biding his time???

Will it be a 'race' between the sycthe and the silver hammer?

Where's Maxwell when we really need him? ;-)

Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}

Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action,
rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith.
Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let
me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. For
happiness is the only good, reason the only torch,
justice the only worship, and love the only priest.
- Robert Green Ingersoll
****************************************************
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	17 Dec 2003 09:53:28 PM

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:41:54 GMT, Michelle Malkin
<hypatiab7@earthlink.net>, Message ID:
<j420uvo1ot880lc2lanqkbsvooe1lr334q@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:59:27 GMT, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:

On 14 Dec 2003 12:40:04 GMT, Phylter <Phylter@freeway.com>, Message ID:
<Xns9451D252CC4AASmeagolsbane@192.189.54.177> wrote in alt.atheism;

stoney <stoney@the.net> astounded us with:
news:d0mntvsao1cit3pvngq6r1rcbt8j6k19on@4ax.com:

On 13 Dec 2003 07:05:19 GMT, Phylter <Phylter@freeway.com>, Message ID:
<Xns9450998A07F1BSmeagolsbane@192.189.54.177> wrote in alt.atheism;

forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert) astounded us with:
news:20031213014902.15599.00000793@mb-m03.aol.com:

So this business about eggs being ensoulated at conception is just
more papal bull.

Have they ever explained how identical twins get souls? Since there is
only one conception then there should only be one soul, right?

Therefore

one of the twins doesn't have a soul and is already damned...or at

least

can be killed without consequence because they're not really human.

Of course the hard part is determining which one of the twins has the
soul and which one doesn't.

Pffft, easy!, the one that ends up in manacles in the basement, fed on
fisheads is the soulless one.

So, what's the Pope's excuse?

The Grim Reaper is sitting on the doorstep, biding his time???

Will it be a 'race' between the sycthe and the silver hammer?

Where's Maxwell when we really need him? ;-)

He skipped the 'beat?'..... :)

Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.

User: "Michelle Malkin"
Title: Re: Can a person have two souls?	18 Dec 2003 03:19:46 AM

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:53:28 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: