Discuss Atheism and Agnosticism here.

hello?

So what's to discuss?  There is no god.  End of story.


;)

So what's to discuss?  There is no god.  End of story.


;)


Well, things like speculation on meaning of life/is there a god/God (if you're agnostic), how to manage to find will to do good things, how you make meaning out of life, if you think there's any life after death, etc.

So what's to discuss?  There is no god.  End of story.

;)


So I've always been curious; does Atheism solely a statement of what a person doesn't believe in, or does it go further (i.e. "I do not believe in God; what I do believe in is.....").  I asked this on another thread and was told the words "Science" or "Nature" would be appropriate to fill in the blank.

So I've always been curious; does Atheism solely a statement of what a person doesn't believe in, or does it go further (i.e. "I do not believe in God; what I do believe in is.....").  I asked this on another thread and was told the words "Science" or "Nature" would be appropriate to fill in the blank.


Some believe in other things (that aren't "gods".  If you worship your cat as a God, you're not an atheist.  If you "believe" in the scientific method, you still can be).  But it's not necessary.  I guess you could say some believe in Chaos.

Atheism is truly a very fasanating thing.  Many relgious folk tend to believe that all atheist are the same. Don't believe in God, end of story. However my 50 years on this planet along with meeting many many people in the journey I've tooken, I've come to discover that atheist range from this to that as much as relgious folk do.  I've met some that are hard core no God, and want to establish that way of thinking hard and in charge.  I've met some that keep to themselves what they believe.  Other's who were in relgion, had reason to leave and fight a battle between atheism and belief everyday of there lives.  Some are really nice people, some are average people, some are very mean and rude people.  Same as the relgious folk.

Atheism is truly a very fasanating thing.  Many relgious folk tend to believe that all atheist are the same. Don't believe in God, end of story. However my 50 years on this planet along with meeting many many people in the journey I've tooken, I've come to discover that atheist range from this to that as much as relgious folk do.  I've met some that are hard core no God, and want to establish that way of thinking hard and in charge.  I've met some that keep to themselves what they believe.  Other's who were in relgion, had reason to leave and fight a battle between atheism and belief everyday of there lives.  Some are really nice people, some are average people, some are very mean and rude people.  Same as the relgious folk.


Great post, Sam.  Kudos for a wide view.  As a 40-something lady, I've come to know lots of people too.  In any group, often the people who get the most attention are the ones who are causing trouble.  Hence, it appears as if many Christians think all Atheists are outspoken haters of Christians; or that many Atheists seem to think all Christians are intolerant hypocrits, etc.  Truth is, most of both are just everyday people whose beliefs we know nothing about because they are not pushing their beliefs on others.  I love learning about what others believe but that's often a hard discussion, particularly on-line.  Many people seem to know more about what they don't believe than about what they do.  Which is fine too; the exploration of both being the journey.

There are atheists who never miss church, to be sure. It's not like athiesm is a unified philosophy. It just means you don't believe in god, where agnosticism means you don't really believe in god but you don't count out the possibility of its existence and don't care or maybe you do care. People are different in their beliefs.

Well, things like speculation on meaning of life/is there a god/God (if you're agnostic), how to manage to find will to do good things, how you make meaning out of life, if you think there's any life after death, etc.

"Meaning of life"?  A wonderful Python film, but no more than that... if you want to give your own life meaning, that's up to you.

Finding the will to do good things is easy: the right thing done at the right time makes the world a happier place, which is good for everyone, me included.  But it does depend on how you define "good".

Life after death?  Nope.  That's the sort of carrot/stick that religions feel that they have to use in order to get people to do their bidding in this world.


So I've always been curious; does Atheism solely a statement of what a person doesn't believe in, or does it go further (i.e. "I do not believe in God; what I do believe in is.....").  I asked this on another thread and was told the words "Science" or "Nature" would be appropriate to fill in the blank.

Atheism is purely this: a belief that there is no god (or God). There is no implied ethic/moral/behavioiur that goes with this.  I don't "believe in" science or nature (please note the lack of capital letter there); science is a useful tool in understanding what's around us: I "believe in" science in much the same way as I believe that if I hit my head against a wall it's going to hurt.  Whoever said to fill in the blank with "Science" or "Nature" does not have the basic concepts of what we're talking about here.


Some are really nice people, some are average people, some are very mean and rude people.  Same as the relgious folk.

Yep.  People are people... it's one of the reasons my cousins and I got extremely annoyed with the vicar at my grandmother's funeral, who basically said she was a lovely person *because* she was a Christian.  The way we see it is that she was a lovely person because of who she was.

Incidentally, if you'd like more info, Martin Willett's site is (IMO) excellent, and has a fairly active forum, too, if you've any questions you'd like answered.

Life after death?  Nope.  That's the sort of carrot/stick that religions feel that they have to use in order to get people to do their bidding in this world.

Although, if you subscribe to the notion that all our atoms and molecules are recycled after we die into something else (a plant, a fungus, cosmic energy, blah de blah) then there IS some form of life after death, just not the way the organized religions have you believe :)

I don't "believe in" science or nature (please note the lack of capital letter there); science is a useful tool in understanding what's around us: I "believe in" science in much the same way as I believe that if I hit my head against a wall it's going to hurt.  Whoever said to fill in the blank with "Science" or "Nature" does not have the basic concepts of what we're talking about here.


We call it "research" because we are basically unearthing what is already there.  Scientists aren't necessarily smarter than everyone else, just slightly better at the unearthing part :)

Life after death?  Nope.  That's the sort of carrot/stick that religions feel that they have to use in order to get people to do their bidding in this world.


Here you go.  Some religious organizations use the concept of life after death to get people to do things.  But some people with a strong spiritual faith, who happen to belong to a church organization because it makes sense to gather with people who see the world as you do for the sake of community and mutual exploration, just believe in life after death.  They have different understandings of what this implies in regard to our time in this life, eternal consequences, forgiveness, freedom, whatever.  But the point is, if you talk with enough people, you'll see that their understandings vary alot.  I believe there is life after death; but I don't use that to try to get anyone to do anything nor does it leave me in some perpetual state of fear and guarding my every move and thought. 

Each of us experiences only the present moment, which is of zero duration.

Every seven years, every atom in your body has been replaced, yet "you" remain.

Who ARE you?

Each of us experiences only the present moment, which is of zero duration.

Every seven years, every atom in your body has been replaced, yet "you" remain.

Who ARE you?


Darned good question there, Johnny.  I supposed I know WHAT I am (a bunch of atoms that are replaced every 7 years).  But WHO I am, well that's a whole other question.  If every atom is replaced every 7 years (I suck at science, I'll just assume that's true), then how is it we retain our consistency of body, mind, memory, etc?

Darned good question there, Johnny.  I supposed I know WHAT I am (a bunch of atoms that are replaced every 7 years).  But WHO I am, well that's a whole other question.  If every atom is replaced every 7 years (I suck at science, I'll just assume that's true), then how is it we retain our consistency of body, mind, memory, etc?


But we don't retain our consistency of body, mind, and memory.  All three are in constant flux.  The "you" that existed a split-second ago, that exact configuration of matter and energy, is dead and gone, never to return, and a new, different configuration of matter and energy has taken its place in this present moment. 

Yet, "you" still remain.

UH!!   :D

I just fell out of a Harmonica/me/me/me Thread after reading 15 pages of argument - and the first thing I saw was this 'The Atheist Thread'  hmmmm   :D

But we don't retain our consistency of body, mind, and memory.  All three are in constant flux.  The "you" that existed a split-second ago, that exact configuration of matter and energy, is dead and gone, never to return, and a new, different configuration of matter and energy has taken its place in this present moment. 

Yet, "you" still remain.


But we retain them in a manner of speaking.  Constant flux yet also a connection to what was.  I don't look exactly like I did three years ago or 15 years ago, but if you saw photos, you'd know it was me.  Similarly, I can't remember everything that's happened in my life, and yet a line from a song or sniff of a certain cologne can trigger recall of deep emotional memory.  Curiouser and curiouser.

But we retain them in a manner of speaking.  Constant flux yet also a connection to what was.  I don't look exactly like I did three years ago or 15 years ago, but if you saw photos, you'd know it was me.  Similarly, I can't remember everything that's happened in my life, and yet a line from a song or sniff of a certain cologne can trigger recall of deep emotional memory.  Curiouser and curiouser.


Your points are well-taken --- but, "in a manner of speaking" is the operative phrase describing the ontological dilemma of this discussion.  We cannot deny our subjective conviction of possessing an ongoing self-identity that forms an unbroken continuum with our respective past experiences.  Yet when we try to pin-point the source of that conviction in the moment-to-moment flux of the objectively-observed matter-energy-gestalt, we are left scratching our quantum heads and wondering not just who we are, but where we are and when we are.  No absolute points of reference have yet been found in the constant flux of the matter-energy-gestalt --- yet, it seems our own sense of self constitutes such a reference-point.  How can that be?

Well blow me down!

Well blow me down!



ARRRGH, WELL, IF YE SAY SO MATEY, SO BE IT!  ARRRRGH!!!!!

http://literacy.calumet.purdue.edu/student/bowersj/Pirat&Tr.JPG

ARRRGH, WELL, IF YE SAY SO MATEY, SO BE IT!  ARRRRGH!!!!!

http://literacy.calumet.purdue.edu/student/bowersj/Pirat&Tr.JPG


Johnny, you so remind me of the classically trained BRIAN BLESSED, have you heard of him?

Johnny, you so remind me of the classically trained BRIAN BLESSED, have you heard of him?



What "Black Adder", "I, Claudius", or "Dr. Who" fan hasn't?  ;D

http://www.stuart.cann.freeuk.com/images/brian_blessed.jpg http://www.concordplayers.org/00productions/AngelStreet/headshots/JohnSmall2.jpg

Life after death?  Nope.  That's the sort of carrot/stick that religions feel that they have to use in order to get people to do their bidding in this world.



While I agree that its been used that way, we don't know for sure WHAT happens when we die.  Now, I definitely don't think its harps and Angels, but how do I know whether or not my being wouldn't go on to some other existence?  The whole universe is basically energy so theres the possibility that energy which is "you" moves on like a crab from an old shell, so to speak.  Theres also the possbility that the energy which is you just breaks down out into the universe and is no longer "you".  We don't know.

Your points are well-taken --- but, "in a manner of speaking" is the operative phrase describing the ontological dilemma of this discussion.  We cannot deny our subjective conviction of possessing an ongoing self-identity that forms an unbroken continuum with our respective past experiences.  Yet when we try to pin-point the source of that conviction in the moment-to-moment flux of the objectively-observed matter-energy-gestalt, we are left scratching our quantum heads and wondering not just who we are, but where we are and when we are.  No absolute points of reference have yet been found in the constant flux of the matter-energy-gestalt --- yet, it seems our own sense of self constitutes such a reference-point.  How can that be?


YOWZA!  Johnny, that's quite a couple of sentences you wrote there.  I confess I had to read them twice just to absorb it all.  "The moment-to-moment flux of the objectively-observed matter-energy-gestalt..."  Good writing, my man, good writing.

While I agree that its been used that way, we don't know for sure WHAT happens when we die.  Now, I definitely don't think its harps and Angels, but how do I know whether or not my being wouldn't go on to some other existence?  The whole universe is basically energy so theres the possibility that energy which is "you" moves on like a crab from an old shell, so to speak.  Theres also the possbility that the energy which is you just breaks down out into the universe and is no longer "you".  We don't know.


Exactly.

What if Jerry Falwell is right and you're wrong? What will you do then?
:o

Great post, Sam.  Kudos for a wide view.  As a 40-something lady, I've come to know lots of people too.  In any group, often the people who get the most attention are the ones who are causing trouble.  Hence, it appears as if many Christians think all Atheists are outspoken haters of Christians; or that many Atheists seem to think all Christians are intolerant hypocrits, etc.  Truth is, most of both are just everyday people whose beliefs we know nothing about because they are not pushing their beliefs on others.  I love learning about what others believe but that's often a hard discussion, particularly on-line.  Many people seem to know more about what they don't believe than about what they do.  Which is fine too; the exploration of both being the journey.


I believe I've made my first friend on the board. Name's Sam, but real last name is not Loomis.  Got that from an old friend of mine. 

What if Jerry Falwell is right and you're wrong? What will you do then?
:o



What will I do?  I'll be dead.  Not like that can be undone.  The only people who know what happens after you die are dead......and they're not talking.

What will I do?  I'll be dead.  Not like that can be undone.  The only people who know what happens after you die are dead......and they're not talking.


Well, Unca Jerry knows if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, your soul will roast in hell for all eterninty. Sounds pretty nutso, don't it? BUT...what if he's right? As the old bumper sticker says: "It is better to be saved than sorry!"
:D :P

What "Black Adder", "I, Claudius", or "Dr. Who" fan hasn't?   ;D

http://www.stuart.cann.freeuk.com/images/brian_blessed.jpg http://www.concordplayers.org/00productions/AngelStreet/headshots/JohnSmall2.jpg


Heyyy how cool is that, what a likeness - please excuse me for butting into the thread conversation last night, I was tired and didn't realise.  :)

I believe I've made my first friend on the board. Name's Sam, but real last name is not Loomis.  Got that from an old friend of mine. 


Nice to meet you Sam.  :)

The older women in my office nearly fell over when:

(leaving thurs for Easter weekend)
Lucille: bye, Karen- don't eat too much!
Me: What are you talking about?
L: On easter.
Me: Oh...we don't do anything.
5 old ladies: (tilting heads like dogs hearing something strange) harrrrph?
me: have a nice weekend (runs away)

not that I claim to be athiest..just too lazy to bother with active worship and, as I see it, my life is the same as those who do...
and i don't have to cook for 20 guests on sunday and all those other things that make ethnic/religion-based householdrunning wives mental.

The older women in my office nearly fell over when:

(leaving thurs for Easter weekend)
Lucille: bye, Karen- don't eat too much!
Me: What are you talking about?
L: On easter.
Me: Oh...we don't do anything.
5 old ladies: (tilting heads like dogs hearing something strange) harrrrph?
me: have a nice weekend (runs away)


That's funny.  Similar thing happened in my office.  Three people in my area:  my, Vic, Andrew.  Vic is very religious and the conversation goes like this:

Vic:  So Andrew, what are you doing for Easter?
Andrew:  I'm having a F'n huge barbeque!
Vic:  Not going to church.
Andrew:  Church?  Nah.  I figure Easter is good for two things:  An excuse to have a f'n huge bbq and eat great candy!
Vic:  (tilting his head like a dog hearing something strange) harrrph?
CeeKay:  ;D

That's funny.  Similar thing happened in my office.  Three people in my area:  my, Vic, Andrew.  Vic is very religious and the conversation goes like this:

Vic:  So Andrew, what are you doing for Easter?
Andrew:  I'm having a F'n huge barbeque!
Vic:  Not going to church.
Andrew:  Church?  Nah.  I figure Easter is good for two things:  An excuse to have a f'n huge bbq and eat great candy!
Vic:  (tilting his head like a dog hearing something strange) harrrph?
CeeKay:  ;D


ohhh  I'd rather be having a f'n huge bbq than go to Brendan's aunt's house.
i'm going to Andrew's house.

I am an atheist.  I don't believe in God.  I don't believe that there might be anything else "in charge".  I believe that when you die you just cease to exist.  Your energy just breaks down and goes elsewhere.  I don't know where and don't really care.....I'll be dead.

I do believe that religion can be a good thing though.  There are people out there that need to be "controlled" to act civil or moral.  Now I realize that being civil and moral is different from person to person, but then I guess that is the aim of religion....to get everyone to behave the same.

Your energy just breaks down and goes elsewhere.  I don't know where and don't really care.....I'll be dead.



Exactly what is this " I " you speak of?

I do believe that religion can be a good thing though.  There are people out there that need to be "controlled" to act civil or moral.  Now I realize that being civil and moral is different from person to person, but then I guess that is the aim of religion....to get everyone to behave the same.



Methunk the general aim of religion was to provide guidelines for how one should treat others with respect and to be a good person, and not so much make everyone the same.  I guess you can show respect and good will in many different ways based on your interpretation and theirs :)

I do believe that religion can be a good thing though.  There are people out there that need to be "controlled" to act civil or moral.  Now I realize that being civil and moral is different from person to person, but then I guess that is the aim of religion....to get everyone to behave the same.


I disagree.  Well, I clarify.  I know many people for whom religion is a way of living out their faith.  Everyone has rituals.  And every day people gather to do certain things in community -- whether it be at a church or in a bar.  Some people use religious rituals to indoctrinate large groups.  But some individuals choose their rituals because they find meaning in that for themselves -- and that meaning varies.  In our church we try to explain why we chose to do the things we do.  We say to people, "join us in doing this if it has meaning for you.  And if it doesn't, just participate in whatever way you want, or don't if you don't want to."  We teach that if you are participating in a ritual just because you think you're supposed to, perhaps you should stop doing it for awhile.

I am an atheist.  I don't believe in God.  I don't believe that there might be anything else "in charge".  I believe that when you die you just cease to exist.  Your energy just breaks down and goes elsewhere.  I don't know where and don't really care.....I'll be dead.

I do believe that religion can be a good thing though.  There are people out there that need to be "controlled" to act civil or moral.  Now I realize that being civil and moral is different from person to person, but then I guess that is the aim of religion....to get everyone to behave the same.



You sound like my uncle. 8)

Myself I'm an atheist but I won't go as far as to say we cease existence upon death- we have no way of knowing that.  But theres definitely no "God" in my view.

Exactly what is this " I " you speak of?




;D

Methunk the general aim of religion was to provide guidelines for how one should treat others with respect and to be a good person, and not so much make everyone the same.  I guess you can show respect and good will in many different ways based on your interpretation and theirs :)


I agree with you.  I guess I should not have said, "..to get everyone to behave the same."  What I meant was....to get everyone to behave "properly".

;D



Now THAT's a reply worthy of a Zen master!   

Exactly what is this " I " you speak of?

The feeling that I have of being myself: the bit that goes "ow" when hit, or feels good when things go well... it's like my grandfather's axe: my father replaced the haft, and I replaced the blade, but it's still my grandfather's axe.  My atoms may have changed, but enough have been replaced in the same positions for me to still feel like me

But once my corporeal body stops functioning, that bit does, too; and I've no way of comprehending any kind of mechanism which would allow that which defines "me" to continue in existance after the body goes.

[quote author=♫ M@

The feeling that I have of being myself...



You're begging the question, my friend.  :)

You're begging the question, my friend.   :)

Not really: if you want to get unduly semantic, feel free.  But the self-conscious bit that is experiencing reading your reply and realizing that the said reply directed at it... that's the "I".  After all, doesn't it say in the bible "an I for an I"?  (which in theory should be "an I for a me", I suppose)

Not really: if you want to get unduly semantic, feel free.  But the self-conscious bit that is experiencing reading your reply and realizing that the said reply directed at it... that's the "I".  After all, doesn't it say in the bible "an I for an I"?  (which in theory should be "an I for a me", I suppose)


You say that there is a "self-conscious bit that is experiencing" --- what exactly is that?  It is not my intention to get unduly semantic, but words are all we have to work with here.

The physical body (that your "self-conscious bit" is currently associated with) dies permanently and irreversibly as one present moment transitions to the next present moment.  The physical body you experience in this present moment consists of a unique matter-energy-gestalt that exists for an instantaneous moment of time before it, too, dies and is replaced by a subsequent unique matter-energy-gestalt.  That's an objective fact of materialistic physics.  Given that fact, I return to my original question --- what exactly is your "self-conscious bit that is experiencing"?

The feeling that I have of being myself: the bit that goes "ow" when hit, or feels good when things go well... it's like my grandfather's axe: my father replaced the haft, and I replaced the blade, but it's still my grandfather's axe.  My atoms may have changed, but enough have been replaced in the same positions for me to still feel like me

But once my corporeal body stops functioning, that bit does, too; and I've no way of comprehending any kind of mechanism which would allow that which defines "me" to continue in existance after the body goes.
In much the same way as we can't be 100% sure there aren't pink fairies on Mars, I guess we don't know if the "spirit" lives on after death.. it's kind of hard to disprove the unprovable.


I'm not talking about pink fairies or anything supernatural, Mr. Smart@ss.  I'm talking about natural processes we don't understand yet.

ATHEISTS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!
WWW.ATHEISTS.ORG

^  ::)   ::)

You say that there is a "self-conscious bit that is experiencing" --- what exactly is that?  It is not my intention to get unduly semantic, but words are all we have to work with here.

There is a cognitive object that has read what you wrote, compared it against data in the memory bank and analysed it for meaning.  It is convenient for this bunch of processing neurons to call itself "me" (or I, if context and grammar demands)


The physical body (that your "self-conscious bit" is currently associated with) dies permanently and irreversibly as one present moment transitions to the next present moment. 

Dies?  If by "dying" you mean "stops showing the signs of life" (respiration/growth/excretion etc), then no, it doesn't.  It's purely a semantic argument to suggest that every quantum measurement of time a body dies and is reborn.


The physical body you experience in this present moment consists of a unique matter-energy-gestalt that exists for an instantaneous moment of time before it, too, dies and is replaced by a subsequent unique matter-energy-gestalt.  That's an objective fact of materialistic physics.  Given that fact, I return to my original question --- what exactly is your "self-conscious bit that is experiencing"?

Your thesis is flawed in that it is implying that the sequence of "unique energy-gestalt" bits and pieces are independent - in practise, each "unique" entity is derived almost wholly from what was there before: otherwise memory, thought and even life would be impossible.  It is a reasonable (and scientifically provable) position that it is appropriate to treat what you might consider a stream of unique entities as a single one, albeit one in a constant state of flux.  I would call this changing entity "me".


I'm not talking about pink fairies or anything supernatural, Mr. Smart@ss.  I'm talking about natural processes we don't understand yet.

Whether we live on after dying?  Until shown that it actually occurs in any sort of measurable way whatsoever, then it ain't a "natural process we don't understand", it's something that simply doesn't happen.  Suggesting that it does happen, even given a complete dearth of evidence, is the same sort of flight of fancy as fairies, leprechauns or gods.



ATHEISTS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

You have nothing to lose but your.. er.. virginity?  ;)

Your thesis is flawed in that it is implying that the sequence of "unique energy-gestalt" bits and pieces are independent - in practise, each "unique" entity is derived almost wholly from what was there before: otherwise memory, thought and even life would be impossible.  It is a reasonable (and scientifically provable) position that it is appropriate to treat what you might consider a stream of unique entities as a single one, albeit one in a constant state of flux.  I would call this changing entity "me".


Or the human being formerly known as. :P

^  ::)  ::)


ATHEISTS DRINK EARL GREY! YEAH BABY!

ATHEISTS DRINK EARL GREY! YEAH BABY!


Are cats an atheists thing? ;D

Or the human being formally known as. :P

"formally", or "formerly"?

...strangely enough, both seem to fit this argument :)

"formally", or "formerly"?

...strangely enough, both seem to fit this argument :)


LOL 

Formerly, it fits my point better.

Are cats an atheists thing? ;D

do dyslexic people worship Dog?

do dyslexic people worship Dog?


That depends, do they have backwards bibles?

That depends, do they have backwards bibles?


only if they worship Demon Dog

There is a cognitive object that has read what you wrote, compared it against data in the memory bank and analysed it for meaning.  It is convenient for this bunch of processing neurons to call itself "me" (or I, if context and grammar demands)

Kudos for that nice bit of explanation.


 Until shown that it actually occurs in any sort of measurable way whatsoever, then it ain't a "natural process we don't understand", it's something that simply doesn't happen.  Suggesting that it does happen, even given a complete dearth of evidence, is the same sort of flight of fancy as fairies, leprechauns or gods.

I have to disagree with you here.  if you are willing to say that the bits of matter that make up "me" can be considered one unit (I agree), and we know that matter can change but does not disappear...I think there is reason to at least ponder the possibility that "I" continue to exist even when my heart stops beating.  Also, my experiences indicate the possibility although I cannot prove this.  SO, to say "It simply doesn't happen" is a stretch.  I think there is anecdotal evidence enough to at least keep the door of possibility open.  JMO.

There is a cognitive object that has read what you wrote, compared it against data in the memory bank and analysed it for meaning.  It is convenient for this bunch of processing neurons to call itself "me" (or I, if context and grammar demands)


I understand your thesis to be that you consider your subjectively-perceived ground-of-being to be the chemistry of your neurons.  What is the origin of your neurons' self-awareness?


Dies?  If by "dying" you mean "stops showing the signs of life" (respiration/growth/excretion etc), then no, it doesn't.  It's purely a semantic argument to suggest that every quantum measurement of time a body dies and is reborn.
Your thesis is flawed in that it is implying that the sequence of "unique energy-gestalt" bits and pieces are independent - in practise, each "unique" entity is derived almost wholly from what was there before: otherwise memory, thought and even life would be impossible.  It is a reasonable (and scientifically provable) position that it is appropriate to treat what you might consider a stream of unique entities as a single one, albeit one in a constant state of flux.  I would call this changing entity "me".


Replace "dying" with "ceasing to exist".  In each consecutive instantaneous present moment, the human body consists of a unique matter-energy-gestalt that will cease to exist in the next instantaneous present moment.  Even if we grant that this present moment's gestalt has inherited some quantity of information from the previous moment's gestalt, this present moment's gestalt is still unique.  A single entity that is in a constant state of flux consists of a gestalt that is constantly changing, which allows that single entity to be reasonably construed as a stream of unique gestalts.

do dyslexic people worship Dog?


Dyslexic Devil Worshippers Sell Souls To Santa!

Dyslexic Devil Worshippers Sell Souls To Santa!


Santa is an anagram of SATAN

Santa is an anagram of SATAN

And Santa Claus in an anagram of "Causal ants"... but I'm not sure what one non-existant mythological being being an anagram of another really has to do with anything...

And Santa Claus in an anagram of "Causal ants"...



How 'bout
"A Salsa C*nt"
:-X

<----is agnostic

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life ;)

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life ;)


As a matter of coincedince, he was also a great marketing tool for European colonialism!

[quote author=

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life ;)


http://bestsmileys.com/lol/17.gif

How 'bout
"A Salsa C*nt"
:-X




make it extra hot!!!!