Athiests; a question.

[theweatherman]

[ 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.

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.

[imported_luckyme]

[ 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.

[imported_luckyme]

[ 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.

[David Sklansky]

"Atheists don't believe in the soul."

Not necessarily.

[bocablkr]

[ 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.

[bocablkr]

[ 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.

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.

[imported_luckyme]

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.

[bocablkr]

[ 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).