Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]

I still don't see why or how you are linking non-existence with reincarnation. Many things don't exist. You're correct that an unborn child, a dead man, and a flying brick wall that eats ogres and shits elephants all don't exist equally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say that a dead man doesn't exist?

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]

Is there a difference between the dead and those who are unborn?

Both seem to equally not exist. I'm pretty sure that most relgions say that the unconcieved have no soul (since they have yet to be created by God) but the dead do.

To an athiest there seems to be no distinction. What does mean in regards to possible reincarnation? Since personality/ conciousness arises seemingly at random in a fetus it seems that one cannot discount reincarnation as false, or am I missing something here?

[/ QUOTE ]


Consciousness arises seemingly at random in a fetus?? If this were true, it would be mere coincidence that all normally developed human beings are conscious.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

To clarify some comments made about Buddhism and soul.

"The last of the Three Characteristics of Existence [ANATTA]... The Anatta doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real Ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance. This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding of which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogther impossible. It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine with which the entire structure of the Buddhist teachings stands or falls. All the remaining Buddhist doctrines may, more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and religion..."

Quoted from Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines by Nyanatolika. third revised and enlarged edition edited by Nyanaponika. Freewin & CO, Ltd 1972, pgs 12-13

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

<font color="blue">Why do you say that a dead man doesn't exist? </font>

I assume your great-great-great grandfather is a dead man. Does he exist?

I do see what you're trying to do, but I think you failed. When a man dies, he ceases to exist. Therefore, dead men don't exist except in memories, photographs, or by some other mnemonic means.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I do see what you're trying to do, but I think you failed. When a man dies, he ceases to exist. Therefore, dead men don't exist except in memories, photographs, or by some other mnemonic means.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't his attempt be an equivocation fallacy? "Exist" is doing double duty. a)as a conscious, thinking entity. b) as a rock or dead body. Same word does not mean same concept.
So, George doesn't exist. His body may if the worms are slow. My memory of him may ( in a different meaning again of 'to exist'.)

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't his attempt be an equivocation fallacy? "Exist" is doing double duty.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Exist" isn't doing double duty. "George" is. George-the-man, George-the-body, and George-the-memory are all different referents.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
To clarify some comments made about Buddhism and soul.

"The last of the Three Characteristics of Existence [ANATTA]... The Anatta doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real Ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance. This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding of which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogther impossible. It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine with which the entire structure of the Buddhist teachings stands or falls. All the remaining Buddhist doctrines may, more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and religion..."

Quoted from Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines by Nyanatolika. third revised and enlarged edition edited by Nyanaponika. Freewin &amp; CO, Ltd 1972, pgs 12-13

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Buddists believe in reincarnation, which would by necessity require the existence of a soul, and are atheists also.


[/ QUOTE ]

How can these two comments be correct. Do Buddhists (sorry I misspelled it before) believe in a soul? Seems like they may not. Then what is reincarnated?

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
How can these two comments be correct. Do Buddhists (sorry I misspelled it before) believe in a soul? Seems like they may not. Then what is reincarnated?

[/ QUOTE ]

To paraphrase one of my professors on the subject:

"picture a billiard ball. It has a force, unseeable, immaterial. It hits another billiard ball and it stops, transferring its force onto it. Now that ball keeps going where the other left off.

The first ball has transferred something to the other, yet nothing has been moved."

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Exist" isn't doing double duty. "George" is. George-the-man, George-the-body, and George-the-memory are all different referents.

[/ QUOTE ] Typically we use different terms, such as "george" "his body" "my memory of george" ( as I did in my comment).
1) George.
2) George's Body.
3) The Memory of George.
4) The possibility of being dealt AA.
5) the number 11.
6) honesty
If we say "W exists". What properties are we claiming W is exhibiting by claiming it's existance. Quite different.
My quibble was with the concept that by two entities/concepts both said to 'exist' that shared attributes were implied. Along the lines of this -
"George no longer exists"
"Yes he does, he exists in my memory".
My claim is that "exists" in those statements does not mean the same thing. So the second person has committed an equivocation fallacy. If they want to say "His memory exists in my mind" then they're on solid ground.
My claim could be wrong :-(
any comments are appreciated, luckyme

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
(Sorry if this has been discussed before, but i found nothing in search)

Is there a difference between the dead and those who are unborn?

Both seem to equally not exist. I'm pretty sure that most relgions say that the unconcieved have no soul (since they have yet to be created by God) but the dead do.

To an athiest there seems to be no distinction. What does mean in regards to possible reincarnation? Since personality/ conciousness arises seemingly at random in a fetus it seems that one cannot discount reincarnation as false, or am I missing something here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Two points...

1) Personality isn't at random, genetics my friend, genetics determine behaviour.

2) You can't discount anything, ever, that's why religion is still around, evidence and logic don't sway some people, and just cause something can't be proven entirely false doesn't mean we have to accept it as true. So yea, as an atheist I will give you that, reincarnation is a possibility, but there is no evidence suggesting it exists.