Athiests; a question.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> There is a living human being there, yet there is no cognitive or mental activity. So, is this George or not? If not, who is the human being in the hospital bed? </font>

So it is my belief that a man who dies at 8:53, does not exist at 8:54. His body is still there and you can still pin his old identifying name "George" if you like, but George is gone. It's a dead body in the bed that was "once" George.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. That's my view too by the way--that once I'm dead I no longer exist. But I don't think I'm a 'mind' in some sense, although of course I have a mind, but not essentially. I think that I am fundamentally a biological entity, a human animal, and that I can still exist even if I'm in a persistent vegetative state with no consciousness and no mental activity.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
We could say that at 8:53pm he ceases to be alive, but he doesn't cease to exist until some time after that. That's George in the hospital bed, and he's dead. So, I'll grant that he ceases to be alive at 8:53pm, but tell me why you think he ceases to exist at 8:53pm.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's my view too by the way--that once I'm dead I no longer exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
You agree in the 1st quote that George is dead. You agree in the second quote that dead = don't exist. Yet, when I read the 1st quote it insists that just because G died doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
My error. I was taking your posts as seriously trying to make a point, cute, enjoyed thinking it through even if it was a spoof. luckyme

[mackthefork]

Just that one doesn't know what they missed, and the other doesn't know what they didn't miss.

Mack

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


[/ QUOTE ]

Then this statement was false - [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. The statement above was partially false. Buddhists may or may not believe in reincarnation, but Buddhist doctrine is very clear... NO soul!

Buddhism is a graduated process/system of personal development, amongst its adherers you will find people with different abilities and willingness to put efforts into investigation. None may however deny what is fundamental to the Budhist doctrine. If they do believe in reincarnation, which may be the case, then they very well manifest the very human ability to hold contradicting beliefs without any serious problems. The gradual aspect of Buddhism dicates that as their understanding deepens, usually by a process of personal investigation and mental development and observation, that erroneous views will be eradicated. The final objective of Budhism is the eradication (rather than the domination or suppression) of the triple causes of suffering: greed, hate and ingnorance.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We could say that at 8:53pm he ceases to be alive, but he doesn't cease to exist until some time after that. That's George in the hospital bed, and he's dead. So, I'll grant that he ceases to be alive at 8:53pm, but tell me why you think he ceases to exist at 8:53pm.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's my view too by the way--that once I'm dead I no longer exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
You agree in the 1st quote that George is dead. You agree in the second quote that dead = don't exist. Yet, when I read the 1st quote it insists that just because G died doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
My error. I was taking your posts as seriously trying to make a point, cute, enjoyed thinking it through even if it was a spoof. luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Crazy philosophers, always playing devil's advocate.

"George's body is composed of matter, right?"

Yes.

"When does that matter cease to exist?"

The matter can still exist, though, when the body does not. If I chop up the body into little bits, and scatter the bits to the wind, the body is gone, but the matter still exists. hence, the body is not identical to the matter that composes it.

When you think about it that way, it seems that George has always and will always exist, no?

No.

George's mind is a construct, an abstract notion. In that sense, did George ever actually exist?

This seems confused to me. On the one hand there is George's mind, and on the other hand there is the idea or the concept of George's mind. They are not the same thing. Both are real, I would say, i.e., both exist. The usual issue with positing the existence of something like a mind is that it is not physical, so a physicalist would either want to say that the mind does not exist (if it's supposed to be a non-physical thing), or that the mind is actually a physical thing (maybe in that case identical with the brain). I don't equate George's mind with George in either case, so regardless of one's stand about the existence of mind's, that George exists is not a problem (I say George is a wholly physical thing--a human animal).

There is a big difference: one has never existed; the other has previously existed, but exists no longer.

There is no reason to believe in reincarnation because there is no medium to transfer the being of the deceased to the unborn. (According to my view, and that of most other atheists, anyways)

[college kid]

The dead have previously lived. That's the distinction.

Past events influence the future. Future events do not (as far as I know) influence the past.