Am I the same entity or person from the moment I was born?

[ahhell]

No, the prophets lived much earlier than is stated in official history. By the way, the prophet Jesus is actually Joshua, who is mentioned in the false Torah, and he is the nephew of the prophets Moses and Aaron.

I'm mildly curious if this belief is common among Muslims or just some minority crankery along the lines of the missing time conspiracy theories.

I'm always amazed that people in the modern world stll buy this crap. And by that, I don't just mean Islam. I mean Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Hinduism etc, etc. I live in a small town with 1 pathetic library, a small grocery store and a staggering 12 churches and a Creation Center where they peddle nonsense to the rubes.

I was brought up in the church. But I don't think I ever bought any of the supernatural stuff. Even at age 5 or 6, I thought it was nonsense. But the cookies were always good.

What's to be amazed by, human knowledge has grown but human nature is the same as it has been for at least recorded history. I don't think we should be to be surprised that people believe silly things. Even the non-religious often do. The old spiritual but no religious is usually code for believes nonsense but doesn't like to go to church.

You could argue that even atheism is an act of faith. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in god, but I have to admit I could be wrong. Seems unlikely but I could be.

Anyrate, its a mildly interesting question that I doubt we can ever answer with some leap faith. I am the same person as I was when I was born, almost certainly not. Am I same person as I was when I started writing this post, probably. How long ago can I go before I can say that was a different me? IDK.

Also, I like the ship of theseus but I think we should rename it the Constitution. For those of you that don't know, the USS Constitution is the oldest commissioned ship in the world, but they estimate it's something like 20% original parts at this point. So, its a ship of Theseus in real life!

USS Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Steve]

When I was born I was, by all appearances, not Turkish. Now? Well.....

 

[acbytesla]

I'm mildly curious if this belief is common among Muslims or just some minority crankery along the lines of the missing time conspiracy theories.

What's to be amazed by, human knowledge has grown but human nature is the same as it has been for at least recorded history. I don't think we should be to be surprised that people believe silly things. Even the non-religious often do. The old spiritual but no religious is usually code for believes nonsense but doesn't like to go to church.

You could argue that even atheism is an act of faith. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in god, but I have to admit I could be wrong. Seems unlikely but I could be.

Anyrate, its a mildly interesting question that I doubt we can ever answer with some leap faith. I am the same person as I was when I was born, almost certainly not. Am I same person as I was when I started writing this post, probably. How long ago can I go before I can say that was a different me? IDK.

Also, I like the ship of theseus but I think we should rename it the Constitution. For those of you that don't know, the USS Constitution is the oldest commissioned ship in the world, but they estimate it's something like 20% original parts at this point. So, its a ship of Theseus in real life!

USS Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You went off the rails suggesting you could argue that atheism is a act of faith. I guess you can argue anything, but you would be wrong. Of course that depends on the definition. It certainly isn't comparable to the "faith" that religions lean on.

I'm an atheist. By that, I mean I have yet to hear a persuasive argument to believe in any god, deity, or creator. If one is ever presented to me, I'll believe in that. Faith is not required either way.

Faith in my perspective is the most intellectually bankrupt idea on the planet. It is like a free pass to be stupid. Faith is standing up for ignorance. All of a sudden you say, "this is right because I have faith." No evidence is required. You can even dismiss all the evidence that you're wrong. You can even pass the collection plate for whatever it is.

I personally hate the word atheist and particularly hate the word atheism. I mean there isn't a term for not believing in fairies, witches, Superman, Star Trek or other imaginary objects or beings. But that's the word non-believers are saddled with. And when you add the "ism" suffix, it becomes some kind of philosophy. It's not.

 

[ahhell]

You went off the rails suggesting you could argue that atheism is a act of faith. I guess you can argue anything, but you would be wrong. Of course that depends on the definition. It certainly isn't comparable to the "faith" that religions lean on.

I'm an atheist. By that, I mean I have yet to hear a persuasive argument to believe in any god, deity, or creator. If one is ever presented to me, I'll believe in that. Faith is not required either way.

Faith in my perspective is the most intellectually bankrupt idea on the planet. It is like a free pass to be stupid. Faith is standing up for ignorance. All of a sudden you say, "this is right because I have faith." No evidence is required. You can even dismiss all the evidence that you're wrong. You can even pass the collection plate for whatever it is.

I personally hate the word atheist and particularly hate the word atheism. I mean there isn't a term for not believing in fairies, witches, Superman, Star Trek or other imaginary objects or beings. But that's the word non-believers are saddled with. And when you add the "ism" suffix, it becomes some kind of philosophy. It's not.

I've met some folks that treat it as a sort of philosophy. That whole Atheism+ thing was kind of that. As though not believing in god necessarily meant you'd agree on a whole slew of other things or something. Never really understood the whole A+ thing. Either trying to isolate themselves from progressives that also believe in god or from atheists that weren't progressives. Just seemed like they were trying to shorten the guest list.

 

[EHocking]

To answer the OP, “Am I the same entity or person from the moment I was born?”

Yes, you are. You still believe in childish things.

 

[acbytesla]

I've met some folks that treat it as a sort of philosophy. That whole Atheism+ thing was kind of that. As though not believing in god necessarily meant you'd agree on a whole slew of other things or something. Never really understood the whole A+ thing. Either trying to isolate themselves from progressives that also believe in god or from atheists that weren't progressives. Just seemed like they were trying to shorten the guest list.

I can't speak for all atheists. And I have never heard of Atheism+. That said, there are groups that promote rational thinking and skepticism. The word atheism is used because most everyone knows what that means.

It doesn't mean you're a progressive. Or a conservative or anything. It doesn't mean you don't believe or disbelieve in the supernatural. All it means is you don't believe in god. Anything else is something that person added?

 

[arthwollipot]

And I have never heard of Atheism+.

It's a bit 2012, so if you weren't in the movement at around that time, you might not have encountered it. It was a response to the New Atheists movement that started around 2006, that tried to tie atheism in with "social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime” big-tent style.

Atheism+ is, at its most basic, an attempt wrap things together more formally, to create a movement that prioritises issues of equality and does so from an explicitly non-religious perspective. Some would say that such a philosophy already exists in the form of humanism. Others prefer the label Skeptic. Atheism+, however, seeks to capitalise on the sense of identity that has grown up around the word “atheism” during the past few years.”

Atheism+: the new New Atheists - New Statesman, 23 August 2012

 

[acbytesla]

It's a bit 2012, so if you weren't in the movement at around that time, you might not have encountered it. It was a response to the New Atheists movement that started around 2006, that tried to tie atheism in with "social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime” big-tent style.



Atheism+: the new New Atheists - New Statesman, 23 August 2012

I don't know about any "movement." I've been an atheist by name for 35 years. I'm familiar with the term "new atheist." But it wasn't used by atheists. It was a term that the religious used because all of a sudden they were getting push back by intellectuals like Hitchens, Harris etc.

 

[Emre_1974tr]

If Allah can preserve a person’s identity during sleep and restore it afterwards then why can he not do the same when transported?

Is that an indication of the limits of Allah’s power?

You haven't read my writing carefully. God can create again. In contrast, the teleportation technology in the Star Trek universe, i.e., the meat grinder, cannot do this.

 

[acbytesla]

You haven't read my writing carefully. God can create again. In contrast, the teleportation technology in the Star Trek universe, i.e., the meat grinder, cannot do this.

Except you have zero evidence that God can create anything even a first time. Or that there is a god.

 

[JayUtah]

You haven't read my writing carefully. God can create again. In contrast, the teleportation technology in the Star Trek universe, i.e., the meat grinder, cannot do this.

I have read your writing carefully. It’s presumptive and uncompelling for the reasons I told you. You have not watched Star Trek carefully. As a result you’re just as ignorant about it as you are about religion and philosophy.

 

[Olmstead]

You haven't read my writing carefully. God can create again. In contrast, the teleportation technology in the Star Trek universe, i.e., the meat grinder, cannot do this.

Why wouldn't God create again or transfer when a transporter is used? I think such janitorial duties should definitely fall within the purview of the Almighty Creator.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't know about any "movement." I've been an atheist by name for 35 years. I'm familiar with the term "new atheist." But it wasn't used by atheists. It was a term that the religious used because all of a sudden they were getting push back by intellectuals like Hitchens, Harris etc.

Yeah, if you read the article you can see how the Atheism+ movement came from that.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Anyway...Bicyclism...Molecular Theory...Stop leaning against the wall like that!

 

[JayUtah]

Why wouldn't God create again or transfer when a transporter is used?

Because then Emre can't decry scientists for making a machine that somehow defies his religion, and philosophers for not agreeing with that. Remember that Emre's schtick isn't just that all other religions are wrong (even traditional Islam), but that all other ways of thinking are wrong—science especially. He has to make sure everyone knows how wrong and evil those people are.

The problem is that scientists—either real or fictional—haven't actually done any such thing. Emre only imagines that they have, trying to reason in-universe about a fictional machine. But he can't even get the in-universe thinking correct, much less connect that to anything reall. The imitations he imposes on the transporter are simply those he's projected onto it from nothing more than a need to create the desired distinction. And philosophers have no problem with any of it because their concept of identity and continuity is far more developed than Emre's pidgin version of it.

It is possible even within Emre's broken framework to undermine its conclusion by relaxing some of its assumptions. But when he responds to pages of thoughtful (if often off-topic) analysis with little more than, "You haven't sufficiently admired me" and "Because I say so," then we're back to the typical Emre thread where such an exercise is a waste of time.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Really, Emre needs to go away and study the works of the most excellent de Selby and cogitate at length on the wisdoms contained therein: it will be improving!

 

[Carrot Flower King]

A selection of highlights:

"....de Selby develops a substance ("D.M.P.") capable of extracting all oxygen from an airtight enclosure, thus disrupting the sequentiality of time, incidentally making it possible to produce fine mature whiskey in a week. De Selby vows to use the substance to destroy the world in the name of God."

"...a number of de Selby's works including Golden Hours, The Country Album, A Memoir of Garcia, Layman's Atlas and the Codex. The fictional Bassett and Hatchjaw wrote biographies Lux Mundi: A memoir of de Selby and de Selby's Life and Times, both lost. Le Fournier, du Garbandier, Kraus and Le Clerque are supposed sources of de Selby material, but their works (suiting the fiction) were lost."

"As discussed in Irish Philosophy, de Selby believed human existence was "a succession of static experiences each infinitely brief" and "a journey is a hallucination" which he demonstrated by travelling from Bath to Folkestone by means of picture postcards of the supposed route, barometric instruments, clocks and a device to regulate gaslight to simulate sunlight at various "times" of day. Another theory of de Selby's was that mirrors held the secret to eternity, claiming a huge array of parallel mirrors allowed him to see his own face as a boy of twelve."

And that's before we get to atomic/molecular theory...

 

[acbytesla]

Yeah, if you read the article you can see how the Atheism+ movement came from that.

There's a difference between being an atheist and being a skeptic. They tend to go together because it's pretty much impossible to apply true skepticism to the god proposition and not find it flawed.

It's also impossible not to recognize that it isn't "god" that makes many people gravitate to religion. But their desire for answers, (even if they're wrong) and to connect to their fellow humans. Everyone naturally wants to belong. They want and in the past very much needed the community that religions provide. The congregation, church, mosque or temple was the beating heart of the community. It was also very often the seat of government as well.

It is also, probably the biggest downside of being an atheist. You're not just not part of the community, you become an adversary if not an enemy of those communities. And many atheists are trying to bridge that gap by attempting to build a community of atheists. But it is like herding cats because there is little to bind these people together.

 

[8enotto]

Water tends to seek its own level. The fundies hang with like minds, the tolerant religious tend to form a wider community and the non believers form small groups that interact as need be with anyone else.
Speaking from a Mexican point of veiw at least.

My skills had me working for near anyone. My shopping needs had me going wherever.
My social circle is small.


The faces of the gods printed on small pieces of paper and coins transgressed all other faiths. They didn't mind me supporting thier businesses.

 

[arthwollipot]

It is also, probably the biggest downside of being an atheist. You're not just not part of the community, you become an adversary if not an enemy of those communities. And many atheists are trying to bridge that gap by attempting to build a community of atheists. But it is like herding cats because there is little to bind these people together.

I find that it is when people try to artificially build communities that they run into problems. I am a part of a community of atheists, skeptics, lovers of curiosity and students of the sword, because those are the people I enjoy hanging out with. I never set out to build that community, it formed naturally.