Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Souls Message-ID: <1586@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sun, 25-Aug-85 15:52:32 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1586 Posted: Sun Aug 25 15:52:32 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 26-Aug-85 01:43:30 EDT References: <1291@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1566@pyuxd.UUCP> <1348@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 44 >>Charlie, for the last time, when you refer to any "something" that exists >>beyond the end of life, you are implying that there is something more to >>us than our physical bodies, i.e., souls. You may not want to call it >>that (perhaps because of the baggage you seem to admit that the word >>carries), but you are referring to a soul nonetheless. Denying that an >>applicable word may be used to refer to a concept (choosing to use >>another word and DENYING that the applicable word applies) is just as >>silly as taking a word with an existing definition and tacking on >>totally different meaning to it for the purpose of "getting" something >>to "exist". One (erroneously) "gets" you something that doesn't apply, >>the other denies that the original term applies just because you're using >>a different word (perhaps specifically to avoid using the original). > Fine, then, it's for the last time. I choose not to believe your assertion, > because both you and Padraig refuse to justify it. Oh, but we have, Charles. Language. Are you aware of language, a consensus among people about what sound utterances and scrawls on paper represent. Your utterances and scrawls are represented by the word "soul". What possible reason do you have for denying this? Are you simply trying to shirk the baggage that the word entails? If so, dealing with the same CONCEPT (which is represented by that awful word "souls") doesn't let you get rid of any baggage. > I find it amusing that two atheists seem to have so much knowledge of the > possibilities of the supernatural. I'm also amused by this persistent > fallacy that the existence of something at points A and B in time implies the > continued existence of the thing between those times. I don't know where to > begin to criticize Rich's totally spurious lesson in semantics. If I got a "spurious lesson in semantics", it must have been Charles here who taught it to me. Whether or not we are atheists is irrelevant. The word soul means the part of person's existence outside of his/her physical body. Since you are saying that a part of a person survives after the body is gone, you are making reference to a thing that is very adequately and accurately described by that awful word "soul". Unless you're saying that god just rebuilds us at some time in the future. If so, what is "rebuilt"? > The wind blows where it pleases So now Charles attributes will to the wind as well as the forces of nature... -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr