Athiests; a question.
 

(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?

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Since personality/ conciousness arises seemingly at random in a fetus it seems that one cannot discount reincarnation as false

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesnt make sense. Former just doesn't lead to the latter.

Note that there will almost certainly be no atheists who believe in reincarnation.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheists don't believe in the soul.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Personality/consciousness is a phenomenon that arises from having a functional human brain. Fetuses and the dead have neither. We have no reason to believe in reincarnation.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

Your post is very difficult to respond to. Each statement/premise seems false or at best very inaccurate. You might make better progress if you started lower down the list of assumptions and questioned from there.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

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


[/ QUOTE ]

No, neither one exists. Note: atheists do not believe in a soul or reincarnation.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

maybe im explaining this poorly so I'll try to seperate the points a little.

Since there is no distinction between the dead and the unborn it seems impossible to discount reincarnation.

This is because both the dead and unborn equally do not exist. When the unborn are concieved thay move from a nonexistient state to one of existence.

Since the dead and the unborn are equally non existient can not a dead person be reincarnated through the same process that crates the existence of the unborn?

Obviously few, if any, athiests believe in reincarnation, but is there any reason to doubt it's plausability?

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
maybe im explaining this poorly so I'll try to seperate the points a little.

Since there is no distinction between the dead and the unborn it seems impossible to discount reincarnation.

This is because both the dead and unborn equally do not exist. When the unborn are concieved thay move from a nonexistient state to one of existence.

Since the dead and the unborn are equally non existient can not a dead person be reincarnated through the same process that crates the existence of the unborn?

Obviously few, if any, athiests believe in reincarnation, but is there any reason to doubt it's plausability?

[/ QUOTE ]

If something ceases to exist, it cannot come back into being.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
If something ceases to exist, it cannot come back into being.


[/ QUOTE ]

That doesnt seem true, as it has been said above, before conception no one existed. The act ofconception moves you from a state of nonexistence to one of existence.

It seemingly should make no difference if that person had existed before or not, since they would still be equally non existent as a dead person, or an unborn person.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

In an effort to be helpful I'll point to areas of disagreement and then you can decide which one to work on first.
[ QUOTE ]
Since there is no distinction between the dead and the unborn it seems impossible to discount reincarnation.

[/ QUOTE ] There are lots of distinctions between the dead and the unborn. The 'incarnation claim' is like adding "and the red goose can mustky two wiglets".
[ QUOTE ]
This is because both the dead and unborn equally do not exist.

[/ QUOTE ] Not a meaningful statement "not existing" is like what happens as you enter a black hole, it impossible to say what is 'equal' beyond that. Naturally in a physical sense they do exist. [ QUOTE ]
When the unborn are concieved thay move from a nonexistient state to one of existence.

[/ QUOTE ] Meaninngless until several of the terms are clearly defined.
[ QUOTE ]
Since the dead and the unborn are equally non existient can not a dead person be reincarnated through the same process that crates the existence of the unborn?

[/ QUOTE ] see above and add "read something about neuroscience". [ QUOTE ]
Obviously few, if any, athiests believe in reincarnation, but is there any reason to doubt it's plausability?

[/ QUOTE ] You slip into the "prove it wrong' fallacy here. State your evidence for reincarnation and I'm sure you'll find takers on challenging it.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

A bubble doesn't exist, then it exists for a brief time, then it doesn't exist. Are you saying this bubble can realize life again by coming into existence as a tree or an alligator?

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. But what's your point? None of these things are any more likely to reincarnate from a non-existent state.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
A bubble doesn't exist, then it exists for a brief time, then it doesn't exist. Are you saying this bubble can realize life again by coming into existence as a tree or an alligator?

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. But what's your point? None of these things are any more likely to reincarnate from a non-existent state.

[/ QUOTE ]

But obviously an unboron child somehow comes into existence froma non existent state. How would this be any different than a dead person being reborn? It seems that they would both be the same process, the only difference being that the dead person has existed before. But this would seemingly have no effect.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

I think I may have an idea what you are getting at. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I think you are saying that since a new personality springs into existence from nothing, it could be the same personality as one that has previously sprung from nothing, died and therefore returned to being nothing, and so could have returned from nothing.

The problem is you are assuming this personality as an item, rather than just a description of the functioning of a brain.

If Brain A can be kick-started in a lab, thinks for a while, then is switched off and completely cleared of memories, then is kick started again, would it have the same personality. Would that be reincarnation or new life?

The answer is that atheists would think the question is meaningless. I use the term 'personality' to refer to that collection of thoughts, ideas and processes at the time. So there would be no continuity in that situation.

I think you are adding an unneccessary sentimental edge to the question.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
But obviously an unboron child somehow comes into existence froma non existent state. How would this be any different than a dead person being reborn? It seems that they would both be the same process,

[/ QUOTE ]
You walk by a tree and see a branch sprouting leaves. You walk by a petrified branch. Why can't the petrified branch sprout leaves?
Consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain. It's not 'inserted' and it's not on-off. There is a sliding scale of consciousness ( and self-awareness for that matter) and an entity can be 'a little bit conscious' and all the way up in any number of degrees of it.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The answer is that atheists would think the question is meaningless. I use the term 'personality' to refer to that collection of thoughts, ideas and processes at the time. So there would be no continuity in that situation.

[/ QUOTE ] Good catch, alex. I see now that the OP is thinking that if we join hands and form a circle and then disengage that the circle hangs around somewhere waiting to be used again.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

"Atheists don't believe in the soul."

Not necessarily.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A bubble doesn't exist, then it exists for a brief time, then it doesn't exist. Are you saying this bubble can realize life again by coming into existence as a tree or an alligator?

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. But what's your point? None of these things are any more likely to reincarnate from a non-existent state.

[/ QUOTE ]

But obviously an unboron child somehow comes into existence froma non existent state. How would this be any different than a dead person being reborn? It seems that they would both be the same process, the only difference being that the dead person has existed before. But this would seemingly have no effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

The unborn come into existence based on the combination of genetic material from their parents. This produces their unique brain, biochemistry and concept of self which religious people would call the soul.

For a newborn to be the reincarnation of a dead person would require them to have the exact same genetic code as the deceased. Even then, the thoughts of that person would be different than the deceased (nuture vs. nature).

Sorry, there is no way for the dead to be reborn.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Atheists don't believe in the soul."

Not necessarily.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never met one who did - do you??? Sounds like a good poll question.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

I think you would just find out that people had different definitions of a soul.

For example, I could believe in a soul, if by soul I meant the combination of personality during life and the impact and memories left with other people after death.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

No belief in a supreme being ( atheism) doesn't rule out belief in what in religious terms would be called a soul. Some forms of buddhism would fit that description. If you numb down certain brain areas ( this can be done by meditation also) you lose the sense of self and it can foster a belief in 'oneness'. Some 'soul-based' atheistic philosophies are built around this experience.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think you would just find out that people had different definitions of a soul.

For example, I could believe in a soul, if by soul I meant the combination of personality during life and the impact and memories left with other people after death.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alex, to be fair, that is not what most people would consider a soul. It usually involves the concept of a spirit (non-corporal entity or energy). It is something that actually leaves the body and moves to another plane of existence.

If everyone has their own definition, then yeah, I guess some atheists might believe in a soul (as defined your way).

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
atheists do not believe in a soul or reincarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddhists are atheists, and major branches of Buddhism believe in reincarnation. Souls, likewise, can exist without God existing.

Atheists don't believe that God exists. Period.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Both seem to equally not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both exist.

Actually, someone could be reincarnated. Depending on how you define a "person", it is theoretically possible for the exact same combination of particles to form twice, and for them to have the exact same interactions with the world (same experiences). Someone need not die for this to happen, though. But, I'm pretty sure it's more likely that an entire copy of our universe exists (with lots of duplicate people) than it would be for a duplicate person to form in this universe.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
atheists do not believe in a soul or reincarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddhists are atheists, and major branches of Buddhism believe in reincarnation. Souls, likewise, can exist without God existing.

Atheists don't believe that God exists. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kip, disagree. See the below item taken from http://atheism.about.com/b/a/208011.htm

Discussion: Atheists and Souls
A forum member writes: There is nothing in atheism that excludes a belief in souls and the like. An atheist can believe in vampires, werewolves, magic, ghosts and faeries all they want and still be an atheist so long as they do not believe in a god or gods. After all, many Buddists believe in reincarnation, which would by necessity require the existence of a soul, and are atheists also.

It's certainly true that atheism is compatible with belief in souls or an afterlife — atheism only excludes belief in gods. At the same time, though, belief in souls or an afterlife is more often associated with theism than not. If you are an atheist who believes in souls or an afterlife, what is the context for your beliefs and why do you hold them ?

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is you are assuming this personality as an item, rather than just a description of the functioning of a brain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I most liekly misrepresetned myself when i used thephrase personality. I seriously doubt that personality is genetically coded but is rather formed though experience.

Since basic brain patterns are genetically coded someone could be born with the same basic brain pattern that self awarness arsies from but have a completely different personality. This is more what i ment when i said reincarnation.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
But, I'm pretty sure it's more likely that an entire copy of our universe exists (with lots of duplicate people) than it would be for a duplicate person to form in this universe

[/ QUOTE ] I agree, but I think quantum effects may put the kibosh on either idea, yet I'm not ruling anything out.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Since basic brain patterns are genetically coded someone could be born with the same basic brain pattern that self awarness arsies from but have a completely different personality. This is more what i ment when i said reincarnation.



[/ QUOTE ]

What is the probability that every single molecule in the newborn's brain would be exactly the same as the deceased?

If even one is different, I suspect they would not be identical.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

<font color="blue"> I seriously doubt that personality is genetically coded but is rather formed though experience. </font>

Uh, personality is very much genetically coded.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you are an atheist who believes in souls or an afterlife, what is the context for your beliefs and why do you hold them ?

[/ QUOTE ] Seems an obvious question. I don't see what it has to do with the statement "Atheists can believe in souls". If I run into one that does, the 'why' question may arise. Unless he blames it on "well, god ... " then he is going to be my living specimen of an atheist that believes in souls. Where is the conflict?

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
atheists do not believe in a soul or reincarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddhists are atheists, and major branches of Buddhism believe in reincarnation. Souls, likewise, can exist without God existing.

Atheists don't believe that God exists. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kip, disagree. See the below item taken from http://atheism.about.com/b/a/208011.htm

Discussion: Atheists and Souls
A forum member writes: There is nothing in atheism that excludes a belief in souls and the like. An atheist can believe in vampires, werewolves, magic, ghosts and faeries all they want and still be an atheist so long as they do not believe in a god or gods. After all, many Buddists believe in reincarnation, which would by necessity require the existence of a soul, and are atheists also.

It's certainly true that atheism is compatible with belief in souls or an afterlife — atheism only excludes belief in gods. At the same time, though, belief in souls or an afterlife is more often associated with theism than not. If you are an atheist who believes in souls or an afterlife, what is the context for your beliefs and why do you hold them ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see how your quoted text does anything but confirm what I previously stated.

The question you bolded, could be rephrased: "why are some atheists irrational"? That doesn't mean they aren't atheists... it just means that believing in souls and reincarnation is irrational.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I seriously doubt that personality is genetically coded but is rather formed though experience. Since basic brain patterns are genetically coded someone could be born with the same basic brain pattern that self awarness arsies from but have a completely different personality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neurscience points to a mix of both. A lot of our brain is unformed at birth and experience influences how it develops, especially the pre-frontal cortex. It doesn't fully develop for 20 years or so (has a lot to do with what we call 'immaturity'). A lot of our personality traits are innate so experience only tweaks it a bit ( twin studies, etc). Neuroscience is the most exciting field in science. Huge area with lots of room for meaningful discoveries that matter to us directly as humans.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
atheists do not believe in a soul or reincarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddhists are atheists, and major branches of Buddhism believe in reincarnation. Souls, likewise, can exist without God existing.

Atheists don't believe that God exists. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kip, disagree. See the below item taken from http://atheism.about.com/b/a/208011.htm

Discussion: Atheists and Souls
A forum member writes: There is nothing in atheism that excludes a belief in souls and the like. An atheist can believe in vampires, werewolves, magic, ghosts and faeries all they want and still be an atheist so long as they do not believe in a god or gods. After all, many Buddists believe in reincarnation, which would by necessity require the existence of a soul, and are atheists also.

It's certainly true that atheism is compatible with belief in souls or an afterlife — atheism only excludes belief in gods. At the same time, though, belief in souls or an afterlife is more often associated with theism than not. If you are an atheist who believes in souls or an afterlife, what is the context for your beliefs and why do you hold them ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see how your quoted text does anything but confirm what I previously stated.

The question you bolded, could be rephrased: "why are some atheists irrational"? That doesn't mean they aren't atheists... it just means that believing in souls and reincarnation is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most atheists I know are extremely rational. And in my personal opinion belief in a soul if you are an atheist is IRRATIONAL. After reading more in the above mentioned site, I must admit there were some people who claimed to be atheists as well as believing in a soul. Thus the reason for the poll question. I just have never met any - and I have met many, many atheists. Almost everyone in my family and most of my friends I associate with are atheists.

I never really considered Buddists true atheists because of the spiritual aspect of their beliefs - but I am no authority.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I never really considered Buddists true atheists because ..

[/ QUOTE ]

Either the entity fits the definition or it doesn't. If it fits, it's an X, if it doesn't, it's a non-X. "True" is almost always superfluous.
In the west, I agree with you, soul-seeking athiests are rare. I agree that most are rational, but I know some that are atheists for reasons that aren't all that rational, but they are still atheists, since that's a description of their position on a god, not on how they got there.
What other attributes ( trustworthiness, morals, rationality, etc) they typically have is simply outside the definition. If all the atheists I know are french that doesn't become part of what defines atheism.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

An unborn child, a dead man, and a flying brick wall that eats ogres and shits elephants walk into a bar...

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I never really considered Buddists true atheists because ..

[/ QUOTE ]

Either the entity fits the definition or it doesn't. If it fits, it's an X, if it doesn't, it's a non-X. "True" is almost always superfluous.
In the west, I agree with you, soul-seeking athiests are rare. I agree that most are rational, but I know some that are atheists for reasons that aren't all that rational, but they are still atheists, since that's a description of their position on a god, not on how they got there.
What other attributes ( trustworthiness, morals, rationality, etc) they typically have is simply outside the definition. If all the atheists I know are french that doesn't become part of what defines atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand where you are coming from - and I admit my personal sample size is small considering the number of atheists in the world. It is just I always thought of an atheist as one who does not believe in anything supernatural - God, spirits, ghosts, soul, etc. I admit my definition is not correct. However, I still have never met any atheists that did believe in those things. If you look at the poll results, there are not too many here either. I would really like to talk to a buddist and find out in what context they believe in a soul. It seems that if you are willing to believe in such that a leap to God wouldn't seem far-fetched.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/fundbud1.pdf

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/fundbud1.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

Skimmed thru most of it - interesting. They do refer to God and the realm of God. Do you know how they define this God? If they believe in a higher being or state of existence (God) how are they considered atheists?

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I never really considered Buddists true atheists because ..

[/ QUOTE ]
... they are still atheists, since that's a description of their position on a god...

[/ QUOTE ]

... I always thought of an atheist as one who does not believe in anything supernatural - God, spirits, ghosts, soul, etc. I admit my definition is not correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are other words that mean what you want to mean. Naturalist. Materialist. Positivist. Skeptic. If not, you can combine multiple terms to be closer to what you mean.

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/fundbud1.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

Skimmed thru most of it - interesting. They do refer to God and the realm of God. Do you know how they define this God? If they believe in a higher being or state of existence (God) how are they considered atheists?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.buddhanet.net/10-gqga.htm

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/fundbud1.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

Skimmed thru most of it - interesting. They do refer to God and the realm of God. Do you know how they define this God? If they believe in a higher being or state of existence (God) how are they considered atheists?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.buddhanet.net/10-gqga.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, that was a very short and clean read. I will accept that Buddists are atheists (yeah, more of us). Do you have a similar link for their definition of a soul?

Re: Athiests; a question.
 

I'm no authority on buddhism or any other belief system. There are some who believe in gods and insubstantial beings, some who don't. I think my answer to the original question is irrelevant, because I am not capable of knowing. It's very much like the free will question in that regard. It's just circle-walking.