Half of American atheists believe in life after death

Religions > Atheism > Half of American atheists believe in life after death

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 24 of 35

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Happy Guy"
Date:	30 Oct 2003 01:51:17 AM
Object:	Half of American atheists believe in life after death

Americans Describe Their Views About Life After Death
October 21, 2003

(Ventura, CA) Despite the constant flux in many dimensions of
Americans? lives, a new study from the Barna Research Group of
Ventura, California, shows that most people have retained surprisingly
traditional views about life after death. Although the lifestyles,
values, and self-perceptions of most adults have undergone significant
change ? and millions of Americans have embraced many elements of a
postmodern worldview ? the vast majority continues to believe that
there is life after death, that everyone has a soul, and that Heaven
and Hell exist. However, more than 50 million adults are uncertain
regarding their personal eternal fate.
The Afterlife
Belief in life after death, like the existence of God, is widely
embraced: 8 out of 10 Americans (81%) believe in an afterlife of some
sort. Another 9% said life after death may exist, but they were not
certain. Just one out of every ten adults (10%) contend that there is
no form of life after one dies on earth.
Moreover, a large majority of Americans (79%) agreed with the
statement ?every person has a soul that will live forever, either in
God?s presence or absence.?
Evangelicals, born again Christians, and Elders (ages 58 and older)
were the most likely segments to embrace the idea of life after death.
Those least likely to believe in life after death were Hispanics,
Busters (ages 20-38), residents of the West, atheists and agnostics,
those associated with a faith other than Christianity, and unchurched
adults ? although more than two-thirds of each of these groups accept
the existence of an afterlife.
Heaven and Hell
The survey also explored peoples? views of Heaven and Hell. In all,
76% believe that Heaven exists, while nearly the same proportion said
that there is such a thing as Hell (71%). Respondents were given
various descriptions of Heaven and asked to choose the statement that
best fits their belief about Heaven. Those who believe in Heaven were
divided between describing Heaven as ?a state of eternal existence in
God?s presence? (46%) and those who said it is ?an actual place of
rest and reward where souls go after death? (30%). Other Americans
claimed that Heaven is just ?symbolic? (14%), that there is no such
thing as life after death (5%), or that they are not sure (5%).
While there is no dominant view of Hell, two particular perspectives
are popular. Four out of ten adults believe that Hell is ?a state of
eternal separation from God?s presence? (39%) and one-third (32%) says
it is ?an actual place of torment and suffering where people?s souls
go after death.? A third perspective that one in eight adults believe
is that ?Hell is just a symbol of an unknown bad outcome after death?
(13%). Other respondents were ?not sure? or said they that they do not
believe in an afterlife (16%).
Destinations
Most Americans do not expect to experience Hell first-hand: just
one-half of 1% expect to go to Hell upon their death. Nearly
two-thirds of Americans (64%) believe they will go to Heaven. One in
20 adults (5%) claim they will come back as another life form, while
the same proportion (5%) contend they will simply cease to exist.
Even though most Americans believe in life after death and the
existence of the soul, not everyone is clear about their own ultimate
destination. One in every four adults (24%) admitted that they have
?no idea? what will happen after they die. Those who felt their
eternal future is undefined were most likely to be Hispanics, singles,
men, atheists and agnostics, residents of the West, and 18- and
19-year-olds (i.e., young adults who also happen to be the first
members of the Mosaic generation to enter adulthood).
Among those who expect to go to Heaven, there were differences in how
they anticipate such an end would be attained. Nearly half of those
who say they are Heaven bound (43%) believe they will go to Heaven
because they have ?confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as
their savior.? Others felt they will get to Heaven because ?they have
tried to obey the 10 Commandments? (15%) or because ?they are
basically a good person? (15%). Another 6% believed their entrance to
Heaven would be based upon the fact that ?God loves all people and
will not let them perish.?
One of the intriguing findings from the research is that education and
income are negatively correlated with belief in Heaven and Hell. In
other words, the more education a person gets or the more income they
earn, the less likely they are to believe that Heaven or Hell exists.
While most high-income households and college graduates maintain
belief in Heaven and Hell, the finding reinforces the popular notion ?
and, indeed, Jesus? teaching ? that people of economic means and those
with considerable education struggle to embrace biblical teachings on
such matters.
The New Views
Although a comparison of current beliefs to those held over the past
two decades shows that Americans? views about life after death have
been relatively stable over time, new perceptions about the hereafter
are being grafted into the traditional perspectives. For instance,
nearly 1 in 5 adults (18%) now contends that people are reincarnated
after death. And one-third of Americans (34%) believe that it is
possible to communicate with others after their death. As evidence
that this belief is gaining traction, consider that nearly half of all
Busters (48%) embrace the concept of communication with the dead,
while just 35% of Boomers (39-57) and 15% of Elders (ages 58+) do so.
Contradictions Reign
George Barna, the president of the company that conducted the
research, pointed out that ?Americans? willingness to embrace beliefs
that are logically contradictory and their preference for blending
different faith views together create unorthodox religious
viewpoints.? For instance, he noted that among born again Christians -
who believe that they will experience eternal existence in Heaven
solely because they have confessed their sins to God and are depending
upon Jesus Christ to spare them from eternal punishment or rejection -
10% believe that people are reincarnated after death, 29% claim it is
possible to communicate with the dead, and 50% contend that a person
can earn salvation based upon good works.
?Many committed born again Christians believe that people have
multiple options for gaining entry to Heaven. They are saying, in
essence, ?Personally, I am trusting Jesus Christ as my means of
gaining God?s permanent favor and a place in Heaven ? but someone else
could get to Heaven based upon living an exemplary life.? Millions of
Americans have redefined grace to mean that God is so eager to save
people from Hell that He will change His nature and universal
principles for their individual benefit. It is astounding how many
people develop their faith according to their feelings or cultural
assumptions rather than biblical teachings.?
The California-based researcher indicated that born again Christians
are not the only ones confused about what happens after death. Many of
those who describe themselves as either atheistic or agnostic also
harbor contradictions in their thinking. ?Half of all atheists and
agnostics say that every person has a soul, that Heaven and Hell
exist, and that there is life after death. One out of every eight
atheists and agnostics even believe that accepting Jesus Christ as
savior probably makes life after death possible. These contradictions
are further evidence that many Americans adopt simplistic views of
life and the afterlife based upon ideas drawn from disparate sources,
such as movies, music and novels, without carefully considering those
beliefs. Consequently, the labels attached to people ? whether it be
?born again? or ?atheist? may not give us as much insight into the
person?s beliefs as we might assume.?
Research Methodology
The data described in this report are based on national telephone
surveys among random samples of 1000 or more adults (age 18 or older)
living within the 48 continental states conducted in September 2003,
October 2002, and October 2001. The maximum margin of sampling error
associated with each sample of 1000 adults is �3 percentage points at
the 95% confidence level. (There are other types of error besides
sampling error that may also be present in surveys.) All of the
interviews were conducted from the Barna Research Group telephone
interviewing facility in Ventura, CA. The distribution of the survey
respondents coincided with the geographic dispersion of the U.S. adult
population according to Census Bureau estimates. Multiple callbacks to
each respondent were used to increase the probability of obtaining
data based on a reliable sample of adults.
?Born again Christians? were defined in these surveys as people who
said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is
still important in their life today and who also indicated they
believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had
confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.
Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as ?born again.?
?Evangelicals? are a subset of born again Christians in Barna surveys.
In addition to meeting the born again criteria, evangelicals also meet
seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very
important in their life today; believing they have a personal
responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with
non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal
salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that
Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; contending that the Bible
is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the
all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and
still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not based
upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church
they attend. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as
?evangelical.?
The Barna Research Group, Ltd. is an independent marketing research
company located in southern California. Since 1984 it has been
studying cultural trends related to values, beliefs, attitudes and
behaviors. This research was funded solely by Barna Research as part
of its regular tracking of the social, religious and political state
of the nation and its churches.
If you would like to receive a bi-weekly update on the latest research
findings from the Barna Research Group, you may subscribe to this free
service at the Barna Research web site (www.barna.org) by providing
your e-mail address in the section of the home page that offers The
Barna Update.

http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=150&Reference=A
.

User: "eyelessgame"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	13 Nov 2003 02:17:34 PM

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3FB2E0B1.96112A8@worldnet.att.net>...

eyelessgame wrote:

Okay, in case my last message didn't make anything clear, here's a
different attempt to communicate.

[snip]

I really mean the basic basics here --
because the definitions I tend to hear are hand-waving appeals to our
childlike sense of wonder, back when we accepted words without
definitions and created our own mental image of what they must mean.

Before the relatively recent advent of dictionaries, that's
how it went.

Yes. And you're using the word in a surprising way, given the
dictionary definition. You don't mean "soul" to be what
Merriam-Webster says it is.

I don't want that. I want us to be working from exactly the same set
of definitions, because otherwise we'll accomplish nothing except to
argue whether we've made valid points (because our underlying
definitions are different). This isn't to waste your time, it's to
*avoid* wasting our time.

Merriam-Webster suggests this: "the immaterial essence... of an
individual life." I find that kind of general, but I think it can
suit our purpose, at least for illustration of my point of view. Does
"the immaterial essence of an individual life" come close to your
*definition* (as opposed to your assertion, or debating point -- which
appears to be that a soul and a human being are inextricably
intertwined) of the word "soul"?

Unless I accept as fact and not abstraction,
Merriam-Webster's "the immaterial essence
of an individual life", I find it identical to the
'handwaving' you mention below.

Not quite sure what you're saying here, except that you aren't using
that definition, clearly. Souls aren't immaterial, because human
beings aren't. So you reject that m-w definition. So never mind --
you are just using it as a synonym for human being.
So why use the word at all? Why not use "human being", instead? I'm
curious. Clearly you shouldn't consider the question "is there a
soul?" worth asking, because you can't expect a debate opponent to
answer in anything but the negative unless you *mean* to argue over
the definition of "soul".

Perhaps I'm wrong. But I'm trying to make you see that I want a
*definition*, not an assertion. I want to know how you expect me to
evaluate the word "soul", *prior* to hearing your claim that a soul is
a human being.

What are definitions if not assertions?

They generally have to be accepted by all sides before meaningful
debate can happen. They're not assertions made within the debate
context.

In any event, I'm not
necessarily concerned with others intellectual conceptions
until I've been touched by them. If it was me, I'd consider
claims 'prior' to my knowledge of them, immaterial.

Normally, in this context, definitions are made such that a debate can
proceed with agreed-on terms. It is impossible to have a debate (such
as you seemed to want) regarding issues such as "is there a soul?" and
"is the soul separate from the body?" if the debate is done in the
context of "soul" being defined as as "human being". Only nihilists,
solipsists, irrationalists, or sophists (or their close relatives)
could take differing positions on the questions if those are the
definitions used for the debate.
Yet those who believe that "souls do not exist", and those who believe
that "souls are separate from the body", would still hold those
positions, because they would define "soul" differently. No debate
would actually have taken place where they might have been convinced
differently, because the word "soul" itself means a different thing to
them than "human being".
Your position as thus far stated is, of course, consistent with strict
materialism. You might (or might not) consider humans to have an
immaterial aspect (I don't), but we can't discuss the matter unless we
find a word to refer to that hypothesized immaterial aspect. I
thought you might be using the word "soul" to refer to it. I was
wrong.
eyelessgame
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	13 Nov 2003 10:19:28 PM

eyelessgame wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3FB2E0B1.96112A8@worldnet.att.net>...

eyelessgame wrote:

Okay, in case my last message didn't make anything clear, here's a
different attempt to communicate.

[snip]

Before the relatively recent advent of dictionaries, that's
how it went.

Yes. And you're using the word in a surprising way, given the
dictionary definition. You don't mean "soul" to be what
Merriam-Webster says it is.

True.

Unless I accept as fact and not abstraction,
Merriam-Webster's "the immaterial essence
of an individual life", I find it identical to the
'handwaving' you mention below.

Not quite sure what you're saying here, except that you aren't using
that definition, clearly. Souls aren't immaterial, because human
beings aren't. So you reject that m-w definition. So never mind --
you are just using it as a synonym for human being.

So why use the word at all? Why not use "human being", instead? I'm
curious. Clearly you shouldn't consider the question "is there a
soul?" worth asking, because you can't expect a debate opponent to
answer in anything but the negative unless you *mean* to argue over
the definition of "soul".

So far as I can tell, with the exception of the description in
Genesis, no one has been able to define "soul" accurately.

What are definitions if not assertions?

They generally have to be accepted by all sides before meaningful
debate can happen. They're not assertions made within the debate
context.

Debate is normal discourse with an attitude.

In any event, I'm not
necessarily concerned with others intellectual conceptions
until I've been touched by them. If it was me, I'd consider
claims 'prior' to my knowledge of them, immaterial.

Normally, in this context, definitions are made such that a debate can
proceed with agreed-on terms. It is impossible to have a debate (such
as you seemed to want) regarding issues such as "is there a soul?" and
"is the soul separate from the body?" if the debate is done in the
context of "soul" being defined as as "human being". Only nihilists,
solipsists, irrationalists, or sophists (or their close relatives)
could take differing positions on the questions if those are the
definitions used for the debate.

Yet those who believe that "souls do not exist", and those who believe
that "souls are separate from the body", would still hold those
positions, because they would define "soul" differently. No debate
would actually have taken place where they might have been convinced
differently, because the word "soul" itself means a different thing to
them than "human being".

Debate relies heavily on disagreement on terms and processes.

Your position as thus far stated is, of course, consistent with strict
materialism. You might (or might not) consider humans to have an
immaterial aspect (I don't), but we can't discuss the matter unless we
find a word to refer to that hypothesized immaterial aspect. I
thought you might be using the word "soul" to refer to it. I was
wrong.

What other term would you recommend for opening conversation
with those who use "soul" in a context different from mine?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "eyelessgame"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	12 Nov 2003 02:02:56 PM

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3FB1FF41.D701AF7B@worldnet.att.net>...

eyelessgame wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3FB07293.12175304@worldnet.att.net>...

eyelessgame wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3FAF2DED.856F2851@worldnet.att.net>...

eyelessgame wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3FA9A0CE.8986E991@worldnet.att.net>...

eyelessgame wrote:

"Geoff Offermann" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ctbob.64205$e01.214873@attbi_s02>...

As an atheist, do you believe in an afterlife?

No. If I found there was one, I'd of course be thrilled. But there's
no reason to think my consciousness is anything but an emergent
property of the matter and energy making up my body, and that it will
cease to be when the brain stops working.

Earlier cultures, lacking an understanding of how matter, energy,
feedback loops, and information operate, can be forgiven for thinking
consciousness to be some mystical "other stuff" than physical matter
or energy. But there is no reason to invoke other stuff as an
explanation for what we are.

Is there a soul

What do you mean when you say "soul"? I do not think there exists
some entity that makes "me" besides the matter and energy that make up
my physical body. Would you please provide me with a definition for
"soul"?

My definition is: human being.

Well, then. You ask "is there a soul", and then you say "soul"
equates to "human being". Hopefully my answer to this part of the
question is obvious enough not to have to spell it out, but just in
case, yes, I believe there are human beings.

Dodge.

How is that a dodge? You said a soul is a human being. If a soul is
a human being, then yes I believe there are souls. If you mean
something else than "human being" when you say "soul", please say what
you mean. I'm *really* being honest here -- I was proceeding directly
from your definition.

Then why the apparent confusion as to my definition of
soul? I don't believe I could have put it any more plainly.

You did indeed put it plainly. And I stand by my answer. If souls
equal human beings, then I am permitted simply to say things about
human beings and syntactically replace 'human being' with 'soul' to
say the same things about souls. But no enlightenment appears to
occur. I'm not dodging here. I am beginning to suspect you're trying
to shift definitions midstream and I don't intend to let you.

(I find that an odd definition, but hey, your thread, your
definitions.)

Not my thread. What's so 'odd' about my definition?

That you're equating a soul with a human being -- generally people
equate "soul" with some nonphysical *component*, or some abstraction
of consciousness, not with the entirety of a human being. Human
beings exist. Do they have souls? That would depend on what you mean
by "soul". What do you mean by "soul"?

Soul = human being. Human beings are 'living souls'.

If human being equals soul, then let's forget about this word "soul"
(it's just an word that means the same as human being -- so you say)
and just talk about human beings, a topic about which we both
presumably know something.
And again, of course I trivially believe in souls, by your definition,
because I believe in human beings -- and the discussion is at an end,
for *by definition* we can say nothing about souls that we do not also
say about human beings.

It seems now like "human being" is not what you intended to define
soul as equating to. No problem; people can say something and be
surprised by how someone else takes it, that's not your fault (nor
mine). *What is a soul*?

Body and sole [sic] are one and the same.

OK.

, and if you think yes, do you reckon its
dependent on 'consciousness'?

Is a human being dependent on "consciousness"? Well, most humans are
conscious part of the time; a few never are. There could of course be
a human who never gains consciousness -- a stillborn infant likely
qualifies. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Care to try again?
Want to clarify what you mean by "consciousness"?

Raising straw men and twisting context is a sure sign one is running out
of sensible things to say. My only recourse is to say that your resorting
to these silly tactics tells me you're wasting my time, and for apparently
no good reason.

I do not intend to waste your time -- but if we introduce a concept
into a conversation without defining it, we're *all* wasting our time.
You gave a definition, then when I used your definition, you called
it a 'dodge'. It's not. Please use a definition that you really
mean, if you want to talk about souls.

The dodge was in your implied incomprehension of my definition.

I didn't fail to comprehend your definition. If human being and soul
are the same thing, I can answer all your questions about souls in
terms of human beings. That's not "incomprehension", that's basic use
of the logical principle of equivalence.
Or did you mean they were equivalent in one way but not another?
*That* is the shifting of definition I am suspecting you of (and I
suspect it only because you think my extremely straightforward answer
is somehow a "dodge"). If you don't like my answers, please tell me
in what way "body and soul" differ from one another. Be as obvious as
you like.

And I am totally serious about this, because in my opinion most
conversations about this sort of thing -- "belief in" souls, gods,
angels, demons, auras, etc -- degenerate because they (deliberately or
not) leave the particular item under debate undefined. I need you to
define it if you want to discuss it with me. What is a soul?

By now it should be clear what I believe is a "soul".

Yes. You mean "human being". As you said. To summarize: you ask "is
there a human being, and do you reckon it is dependent on
'consciousness'?" (I replace the word you used with a word that is
"one and the same".)
And I respond that yes, of course, there are human beings, and:

I stand by my response. If "human being" equals "soul", then we can
remove references to the word "soul" ("soul" is just a synonym for
"human being" -- *that is your definition*) and talk about human
beings.
What do you want to discuss about human beings? "Consciousness"?
Consciousness in what sense? Certainly consciousness (of the sort
we're familiar with, anyway) is associated with human beings -- this
seems utterly trivial. Does this answer your question? Yet you don't
seem to think your question is trivial, so I'm honestly
misunderstanding you somewhere. Please tell me why my answer --
syntactically replacing one term with an equivalent term -- was
inadequate.
eyelessgame
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	12 Nov 2003 06:09:22 PM

eyelessgame wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3FB1FF41.D701AF7B@worldnet.att.net>...

eyelessgame wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3FB07293.12175304@worldnet.att.net>...

eyelessgame wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3FAF2DED.856F2851@worldnet.att.net>...

eyelessgame wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3FA9A0CE.8986E991@worldnet.att.net>...

eyelessgame wrote:

"Geoff Offermann" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ctbob.64205$e01.214873@attbi_s02>...

As an atheist, do you believe in an afterlife?

Is there a soul

My definition is: human being.

Dodge.

Then why the apparent confusion as to my definition of
soul? I don't believe I could have put it any more plainly.

Look, I gave you my definition. Now, you can take it or leave it.
Whether or not enlightenment occurs to you is your concern not mine..

(I find that an odd definition, but hey, your thread, your
definitions.)

Not my thread. What's so 'odd' about my definition?

Soul = human being. Human beings are 'living souls'.

The topic is always human beings.

And again, of course I trivially believe in souls, by your definition,
because I believe in human beings -- and the discussion is at an end,
for *by definition* we can say nothing about souls that we do not also
say about human beings.

The discussion is at an end because the topic is human beings?
Methinks you've wandered down one garden path too many.

Body and sole [sic] are one and the same.

OK.

Why did you edit my comment? I dont recall "[sic]"
being parft of it.

, and if you think yes, do you reckon its
dependent on 'consciousness'?

The dodge was in your implied incomprehension of my definition.

I didn't fail to comprehend your definition. If human being and soul
are the same thing, I can answer all your questions about souls in
terms of human beings.

That's right. Actually, there's no way to talk about souls
without talking about human beings.

That's not "incomprehension", that's basic use
of the logical principle of equivalence.

I don't hold much store in "logic" and its principles,
with one exception, the one which states: 'The
first and foremost principle of all logic is that any
affirmative statement can be balanced by an
equally true contradictory statement.'.

Or did you mean they were equivalent in one way but not another?
*That* is the shifting of definition I am suspecting you of (and I
suspect it only because you think my extremely straightforward answer
is somehow a "dodge"). If you don't like my answers, please tell me
in what way "body and soul" differ from one another. Be as obvious as
you like.

Body and soul do not differ from one another.
They cannot. They are one.
How much longer is this path of 'incomprehension'
you're on going to go continue?

By now it should be clear what I believe is a "soul".

You're taking stuff out of context again. Thje question I asked
as a way to open discussion was whether a soul depends on
consciousness. Irrespective of my belief in the matter the
question is legitimately asked of those who may believe that
soul and body are separate entities.
I ask again: are you a sophist by nature or nurture? You may
wish to investigate this malady for your own edification, and
well being

And I respond that yes, of course, there are human beings, and:

Fine, I accepted your answer. My objection was to your
feigning incomprehension of my reply.

Fine, and hopefully, finally dandy... rapidly reaching that point
of exasperation that calls for my saying: foolish me..

What do you want to discuss about human beings? "Consciousness"?
Consciousness in what sense? Certainly consciousness (of the sort
we're familiar with, anyway) is associated with human beings -- this
seems utterly trivial. Does this answer your question?

If I'd asked for exploitation, possibly. If I'd asked for an example of
misdirection, probably. However, the question was asked in order to
elicit discussion from those who unlike myself believe body and soul
are separate entities. You could have chosen to respond to the
question in the spirit in which it was asked. Instead, you somehow
(as I see it) felt a safer defense was in strewing red herrings along a
garden path you felt in need of constructing.

Yet you don't
seem to think your question is trivial, so I'm honestly
misunderstanding you somewhere.

Which part of the question did you 'misunderstand'?

Please tell me why my answer --
syntactically replacing one term with an equivalent term -- was
inadequate.

It was irrelevant to the question.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "penitent leper"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	12 Nov 2003 06:45:05 PM

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:09:22 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

eyelessgame wrote:

snip

My definition is: human being.

Actually, the Thomistic/Christian philosophic view is that the human
being is body-mind-soul together. A soul without a body is not a
human being. Neither would be a body without a soul.

Dodge.

Probably the definition would be something like, "the spiritual
component of human beings, but not limited to the spacetime or
"earthly" combination of soul-body."
snip

Soul = human being. Human beings are 'living souls'.

No, a human being is a spirit-body composite. A spirit without a
body is not a human being. A body without a spirit is not a human
being. Theoretically, a human body can live biologically without a
soul - but it would not be a human being. Theoretically, a soul could
live spiritually without a human body - but it would not be a human
being.

The topic is always human beings.

Depends on which topic. Human beings are souls-with-bodies or
bodies-with-souls. The soul in its "native state" is not a human
being because it has no body. A human body without a soul is not a
human being. Hence the myth that god blew Its own life into Adam's
nostrils and only then did Adam become a "living" being.
snip

Body and sole [sic] are one and the same.

OK.

But body and soul are not one and the same. Liver and heart are
part of the same organic system, but have completely differing
identities and functions.
Pollen and plant occupy the same space - but pollen is not the
plant's root system. Soul and immune system occupy the same space -
but the soul is not the immune system.
It can be cogently argued, however, that just as pollen is an
expression of the plant's total life, so too, the soul is an
expression of the body's total life. In fact, C.G. Jung said that the
soul "is the living body seen from within."
snip

That's not "incomprehension", that's basic use
of the logical principle of equivalence.

Logic is indispensable for rational discourse, but rational
discourse is not applicable to statements of the soul about itself -
the soul's symbol systems are not rational. The soul's expressions
are imaged, not argued.
snip

Body and soul do not differ from one another.
They cannot. They are one.

They must by definition differ from one another, otherwise you
couldn't speak of them separately. You would have said "soul" as soon
as you said "body" - and vice-versa. Just as heart and liver are not
the same, although both function within a single organism.

The question is legitimate and the issue depends on the definition
of "separate."
snip

They are separate entities, depending on how "separate" is defined.
- pl -
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	12 Nov 2003 08:05:33 PM

penitent leper wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:09:22 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

eyelessgame wrote:

snip

My definition is: human being.

Actually, the Thomistic/Christian philosophic view is that the human
being is body-mind-soul together. A soul without a body is not a
human being. Neither would be a body without a soul.

I'd buy that except for there being to my mind, no distinction
between the the three.

Dodge.

Probably the definition would be something like, "the spiritual
component of human beings, but not limited to the spacetime or
"earthly" combination of soul-body."

Can you describe "spiritual component"?

snip

Soul = human being. Human beings are 'living souls'.

Well, that's one way of seeing it... not the right way but one way.

The topic is always human beings.

Depends on which topic. Human beings are souls-with-bodies or
bodies-with-souls. The soul in its "native state" is not a human
being because it has no body.

Can you describe a bodiless soul.

A human body without a soul is not a
human being. Hence the myth that god blew Its own life into Adam's
nostrils and only then did Adam become a "living" being.

The word in Genesis is "soul".

snip

Body and sole [sic] are one and the same.

OK.

Ah yes, New Age Jungian... how refreshing.

snip

That's not "incomprehension", that's basic use
of the logical principle of equivalence.

Can you describe the "soul's symbol system"?

snip

Body and soul do not differ from one another.
They cannot. They are one.

By your definition, not mine.

The question is legitimate and the issue depends on the definition
of "separate."

Which is?

snip

They are separate entities, depending on how "separate" is defined.

Please define "separate".
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "eyelessgame"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	13 Nov 2003 02:34:01 PM

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3FB2E76F.36FE13D8@worldnet.att.net>...

penitent leper wrote:

you mean. I'm *really* being honest here -- I was proceeding directly
from your definition.

Probably the definition would be something like, "the spiritual
component of human beings, but not limited to the spacetime or
"earthly" combination of soul-body."

Can you describe "spiritual component"?

That's the question I was hoping someone would answer. :) I see you
and I are in the same boat regarding it.

snip

Soul = human being. Human beings are 'living souls'.

Well, that's one way of seeing it... not the right way but one way.

That would entirely depend on what penitent leper thinks a soul is --
and whether he can demonstrate the existence of the thing he refers to
-- right? (for the record, I don't know of any way he can do that...)

The topic is always human beings.

Depends on which topic. Human beings are souls-with-bodies or
bodies-with-souls. The soul in its "native state" is not a human
being because it has no body.

Can you describe a bodiless soul.

Yah, that's the question.

A human body without a soul is not a
human being. Hence the myth that god blew Its own life into Adam's
nostrils and only then did Adam become a "living" being.

The word in Genesis is "soul".

Um, the word in Genesis is something in Hebrew, and it translates
variously as 'spirit' or 'breath'. Certainly *you* would not translate
it as 'soul', since that would for you mean "God blew a human being
into Adam's nostrils", which I am comfortable asserting was not the
intent of the author.

snip

Body and sole [sic] are one and the same.

OK.

Ah yes, New Age Jungian... how refreshing.

Yah. I tend to like computer metaphors, myself, being a software
engineer, and to refer to the software and hardware of the body.

snip

That's not "incomprehension", that's basic use
of the logical principle of equivalence.

I don't hold much store in "logic" and its principles,

huh.

with one exception, the one which states: 'The
first and foremost principle of all logic is that any
affirmative statement can be balanced by an
equally true contradictory statement.'.

huh. missed this before. "I am not a twelve-foot-tall alien
monstrosity with sixteen tentacles that is currently munching on your
legs." That and its contradiction are equally true?
[snip]

snip

Body and soul do not differ from one another.
They cannot. They are one.

By your definition, not mine.

No, I think he's got you there. You keep *using* the world 'soul'
instead of the word 'human being'. I challenge you not to do so,
since to *you* they are the same thing. You risk confusing the people
who talk to you when you insist on using the word differently than
everyone else.
Why do you say "body and soul are one" when you're really saying, to
you, "body and the human being are one"? If the soul and the human
being are the same thing, then the latter means the same to you as the
former -- yet the latter seems an almost nonsensical tautology. Why
do you say things that, by your definitions, are tautologies?

The question is legitimate and the issue depends on the definition
of "separate."

Which is?

I'd like to hear yours too, by the way. Are the heart and lungs
separate? Are hair and head separate? Are software and hardware
separate?

snip

They are separate entities, depending on how "separate" is defined.

Please define "separate".

Now, again, I'm pretty much on your side at least as you've defined it
to me. I don't think there's any such thing as a 'soul'; there's just
the material human being we all see here. But I think you're arguing
oddly. And if you "don't hold much store in logic and its
principles," I don't think it's really worth talking about.
eyelessgame
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	13 Nov 2003 08:38:27 PM

eyelessgame wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3FB2E76F.36FE13D8@worldnet.att.net>...

penitent leper wrote:

you mean. I'm *really* being honest here -- I was proceeding directly
from your definition.

Probably the definition would be something like, "the spiritual
component of human beings, but not limited to the spacetime or
"earthly" combination of soul-body."

Can you describe "spiritual component"?

That's the question I was hoping someone would answer. :) I see you
and I are in the same boat regarding it.

snip

Soul = human being. Human beings are 'living souls'.

Well, that's one way of seeing it... not the right way but one way.

That's the hook to my original question.

The topic is always human beings.

Depends on which topic. Human beings are souls-with-bodies or
bodies-with-souls. The soul in its "native state" is not a human
being because it has no body.

Can you describe a bodiless soul.

Yah, that's the question.

A human body without a soul is not a
human being. Hence the myth that god blew Its own life into Adam's
nostrils and only then did Adam become a "living" being.

The word in Genesis is "soul".

I suggest the JPS (Jewish Publication Society), English
translation from the Hebrew of "The Holy Scriptures -
According to the Masoretic Text".
Ge 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and
man became a living soul.

snip

Body and sole [sic] are one and the same.

OK.

Ah yes, New Age Jungian... how refreshing.

Yah. I tend to like computer metaphors, myself, being a software
engineer, and to refer to the software and hardware of the body.

snip

That's not "incomprehension", that's basic use
of the logical principle of equivalence.

I don't hold much store in "logic" and its principles,

huh.

with one exception, the one which states: 'The
first and foremost principle of all logic is that any
affirmative statement can be balanced by an
equally true contradictory statement.'.

huh. missed this before. "I am not a twelve-foot-tall alien
monstrosity with sixteen tentacles that is currently munching on your
legs." That and its contradiction are equally true?

It can be argued so. All you have to do is show you're
something other than what you say your not. From there
the logic bird flies in ever diminishing circle till it flies up
its own rectum and disappears. <c>

[snip]

snip

Body and soul do not differ from one another.
They cannot. They are one.

By your definition, not mine.

If I wish to communicate I must use words that are
commonly used. The sorting out of divergent meanings
is the heart and soul (couldn't resist) of argument. It
must begin somewhere and I resist its beginning in a
biased, agenda driven dictionary.
We're not in a conventional space here. We have to
re-invent concepts in order to talk consistently with
each other. Just repeating a dictionary definition isn't a
conceptually relevant act, if you didn't write the
dictionary yourself. If you've actually tried to write
one, you've noticed that it's hard to treat words like
little gems.

Why do you say "body and soul are one" when you're really saying, to
you, "body and the human being are one"? If the soul and the human
being are the same thing, then the latter means the same to you as the
former -- yet the latter seems an almost nonsensical tautology. Why
do you say things that, by your definitions, are tautologies?

I find your constant dunning me on the desirability to
define what I already have, a needless exercise.
Do you really expect me to join you in the closed
semantic cul de sac of common design? My style
differs from the norm out of necessity, especially
when conversing with the "educated/indoctrinated".

The question is legitimate and the issue depends on the definition
of "separate."

Which is?

I'd like to hear yours too, by the way.

See below.

Are the heart and lungs
separate? Are hair and head separate? Are software and hardware
separate?

I'd like to see any of the above exist in nature without the other.

snip

They are separate entities, depending on how "separate" is defined.

Please define "separate".

In my lexicon: existing as an independent entity, distinct from
all others. And, the process that achieves that state.

Well, we disagree on what's worth talking about.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "eyelessgame"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	13 Nov 2003 11:52:53 AM

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3FB2CC33.A4930D02@worldnet.att.net>...

eyelessgame wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3FB1FF41.D701AF7B@worldnet.att.net>...

[snip]

By now it should be clear what I believe is a "soul".

You're taking stuff out of context again.

What the heck?

Thje question I asked
as a way to open discussion was whether a soul depends on
consciousness.

Which is *precisely the same thing* as asking whether a human being
depends on consciousness, to you. I gave my answer -- most human
beings are conscious much of their lives. Is that not a complete
answer?

Irrespective of my belief in the matter the
question is legitimately asked of those who may believe that
soul and body are separate entities.

huh. But how can you determine *whether* it's a separate entity from
the body, until you define it in some way such that you can discuss
the question? Defining it as "a human being" settles the discussion
before you start, which is why I suspected your "definition" was
instead an assertion. Certainly all those who say "body and soul are
separate entities" would *not* accept the defintion of a soul as a
human being. I wasn't asking for an argument, I was asking for a
definition of terms, so that a debate could be meaningfully had. Your
term definition removed any grounds for discussion.

I ask again: are you a sophist by nature or nurture? You may
wish to investigate this malady for your own edification, and
well being

I'm not a sophist. I was trying to resist slippery misdirection on the
word 'soul', but it appears we don't have any grounds for debating the
point.

And I respond that yes, of course, there are human beings, and:

Fine, I accepted your answer. My objection was to your
feigning incomprehension of my reply.

I just thought the answer was pretty obvious. I was surprised that you
needed to ask, that's all.

Fine, and hopefully, finally dandy... rapidly reaching that point
of exasperation that calls for my saying: foolish me..

No, foolish *me* -- I thought we had some sort of grounds for
disagreement.

Ah. Whereas I don't believe they're separate entities; I have no idea
what a 'soul' entity is to begin with. There's only the human being.
So it seems we're on the same side in this debate, such as it is.

Yet you don't
seem to think your question is trivial, so I'm honestly
misunderstanding you somewhere.

Which part of the question did you 'misunderstand'?

I didn't misunderstand. We're apparently agreeing with each other.

Please tell me why my answer --
syntactically replacing one term with an equivalent term -- was
inadequate.

It was irrelevant to the question.

You asked whether a human being is dependent on consciousness. My
answer boils down to 'seems so, for most reasonable definitions of
consciousness, but really depends on one's definition of a human
being', and all the evidence for my position is pretty obvious.
But we agree with each other -- there is no separate 'soul' entity
distinct from the body -- so that's that. Sorry for all the
misunderstanding on my part.
eyelessgame
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	13 Nov 2003 10:00:32 PM

eyelessgame wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3FB2CC33.A4930D02@worldnet.att.net>...

eyelessgame wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3FB1FF41.D701AF7B@worldnet.att.net>...

[snip]

By now it should be clear what I believe is a "soul".

You're taking stuff out of context again.

What the heck?

Thje question I asked
as a way to open discussion was whether a soul depends on
consciousness.

Which is *precisely the same thing* as asking whether a human being
depends on consciousness, to you.

Of course, to me. What you're refusing to acknowledge is that
I'm not addressing those who agree with me but those who don't.

I gave my answer -- most human
beings are conscious much of their lives. Is that not a complete
answer?

Yes but for my purpose, irrelevant. Why keep returning to an
issue resolved apparently to our mutual satisfaction several
posts back.

Irrespective of my belief in the matter the
question is legitimately asked of those who may believe that
soul and body are separate entities.

As long as there's disagreement, there's grounds for discussion.

I ask again: are you a sophist by nature or nurture? You may
wish to investigate this malady for your own edification, and
well being

I'm not a sophist. I was trying to resist slippery misdirection on the
word 'soul', but it appears we don't have any grounds for debating the
point.

We may not but others do.

And I respond that yes, of course, there are human beings, and:

Fine, I accepted your answer. My objection was to your
feigning incomprehension of my reply.

I just thought the answer was pretty obvious. I was surprised that you
needed to ask, that's all.

Ok.

Fine, and hopefully, finally dandy... rapidly reaching that point
of exasperation that calls for my saying: foolish me..

No, foolish *me* -- I thought we had some sort of grounds for
disagreement.

Whew.

Yet you don't
seem to think your question is trivial, so I'm honestly
misunderstanding you somewhere.

Which part of the question did you 'misunderstand'?

I didn't misunderstand. We're apparently agreeing with each other.

Please tell me why my answer --
syntactically replacing one term with an equivalent term -- was
inadequate.

It was irrelevant to the question.

You asked whether a human being is dependent on consciousness.

No. I asked whether a "soul" is dependent on consciousness.
The question was directed at people who believe "soul" is an
independent entity.

My
answer boils down to 'seems so, for most reasonable definitions of
consciousness, but really depends on one's definition of a human
being', and all the evidence for my position is pretty obvious.

But we agree with each other -- there is no separate 'soul' entity
distinct from the body -- so that's that. Sorry for all the
misunderstanding on my part.

And on mine.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	30 Oct 2003 11:22:10 PM

eyelessgame wrote:

"Geoff Offermann" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ctbob.64205$e01.214873@attbi_s02>...

As an atheist, do you believe in an afterlife?

.....sooo right, and the earlier cultures are to blame for the superstitious magnets that still attract
today's believers. In a nutshel Atheists have risen above these things. see below.
bob
Hong Kong
"I cannot follow you Christians; for you try to crawl through your life upon your knees, while I stride
through mine on my feet."
[Charles Bradlaugh]
A Bob footnote:
For 'christians' please read 'religious types'

eyelessgame

User: "JessHC"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	30 Oct 2003 04:37:22 PM

"Geoff Offermann" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ctbob.64205$e01.214873@attbi_s02>...

As an atheist, do you believe in an afterlife?

Nope.
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	05 Nov 2003 07:50:19 PM

JessHC wrote:

"Geoff Offermann" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ctbob.64205$e01.214873@attbi_s02>...

As an atheist, do you believe in an afterlife?

Nope.

Do you wish death were not an issue?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "The Holy Kafir"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	05 Nov 2003 08:01:09 PM

"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3FA9A956.37ED890B@worldnet.att.net...

JessHC wrote:

"Geoff Offermann" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message

news:<ctbob.64205$e01.214873@attbi_s02>...

As an atheist, do you believe in an afterlife?

Nope.

Do you wish death were not an issue?

What's the purpose of your question?

--

The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.