Atheists?

[jonathan lall]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Wow! has this thread gone off topic permanently?!

Im not an atheist, but I do find the idea interesting from a philosophy perspective. Im wondering, do atheist define gods in the traditional sense?

is it only the gods of established religions that they believe do not exist?

where would you draw the line? Do atheists believe there could be life in other star systems?

if so, could that life be so far advanced from us that they would be god-like?

could they be what we would call spiritual beings (as opposed to physical?)

is it a matter of creation? god created the universe? or could it be that some alien life form created humanity and seeded our planet?

I guess Im trying to understand exactly what it means to be an atheist?

You trivialize atheism greatly with your questions. Atheism is simply the lack of a theistic belief, a belief in the existence of god(s). Not all atheists are rationalists (or, ‘one should only believe what one has rational reason to believe’) who take the principles of Occam’s Razor and Tripartite Theory to heart; for example, some don’t believe in god(s) on the basis of the Problem of Evil or because they reject premises of the Cosmological Argument, and some follow a religion that has no concept of a god. Atheism is a very broad outlook that consists of different reasoning, and is not a religion, though there are many religions which can be described as atheistic (Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism don’t mention god for example), just as how many religions believe Jesus was more than an ordinary man. It doesn't necessarily preclude the belief in the supernatural or holy, but is simply a disbelief in a deity – being a person upon whom our fate ultimately depends exclusively and whose power is infinitely greater than our own – or multiple gods which form the same purpose of a deity (another philosophical debate revolves around whether there is really a distinction between multiple omnipotent beings and one singular being, a definite description). God is almost always defined in philosophical circles as the great monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) define him, wherein God functions as a definite description, and this is the main reason people get confused around the definition of “god” in philosophical arguments.

I’m sure some atheists believe there is life in other solar systems, but most theists and atheists alike will agree there is a gaping hole in your logic when you equate powerful beings with gods. Atheism, as I described earlier, clearly does not have anything to do with this. In a theistic world, Star Trek’s Q could exist, as he could exist in an atheistic one. For one thing, Q is neither our creator, nor divine. For another, judging by what he does to the Enterprise, he is not infinitely good, as the great religions say god is.

So that’s what atheism means. I doubt that’s what TheShadow meant when he asked what other atheists were on the forum, but so-called ‘positive atheism’ is unquestionably not the only type of atheism exhibited by ChiefDelphi posters. I personally am surprised there aren’t more atheists here; after all, most scientists are atheists, and ChiefDelphi is a breeding ground for young scientists.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Wow! has this thread gone off topic permanently?!

Im not an atheist, but I do find the idea interesting from a philosophy perspective. Im wondering, do atheist define gods in the traditional sense?

is it only the gods of established religions that they believe do not exist?

where would you draw the line? Do atheists believe there could be life in other star systems?

if so, could that life be so far advanced from us that they would be god-like?

could they be what we would call spiritual beings (as opposed to physical?)

is it a matter of creation? god created the universe? or could it be that some alien life form created humanity and seeded our planet?

I guess Im trying to understand exactly what it means to be an atheist?

Heh, I like the philisophical aspect of this kinda stuff too. Have you checked out Deism, Agnosticisim, or Existentialism?

Existentialism is my favorite

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

You trivialize atheism greatly with your questions. Atheism is simply the lack of a theistic belief, a belief in the existence of god(s). ...

I personally am surprised there aren’t more atheists here; after all, most scientists are atheists, and ChiefDelphi is a breeding ground for young scientists.

lots of good points in your post. I guess one would have to define what God is in order to state their opinion on whether that being exists or not.

I dont agree with your take on eastern religions - they do have a belief in god, but the difference is that we can attain that status ourselves - we can tap into cosmic conscousness, and achieve an equal participation, like buddah did.

If you toss creation into the mix then it opens up problems. Eastern religions teach the universe has always existed, so there was no creation, therefore no creator - Science has shown the universe is expanding from a single point, at an accelerating rate, so it will never collapse back on itself - therefore the big bang was the creation of the universe. At first there was nothing, then it exploded

what exploded? nothing did!

dont think about that too long or blood will gush out of your nose :^)

What am I getting at? I guess creation must be at the core of God with a capitol G, right? in that sense an alien with abilities and power that we would perceive as supernatural would seem god-like to us - and if one came here he could easily claim to be god, and many would follow him. But unless he could create matter and energy and life, and time itself, out of nothing, he could not have created the universe. so he would fail the 'god test' on that point.

I dont know that I agree that we are able to understand everything about the universe. Its very likely there are aspects to the universe that we have neither the senses or the intellectual capacity to understand, or even to observe. Try to explain color to a blind person. They can learn the words, but they cant experience it or understand it, not really. And you certainly cant paint a landscape if you cant see the sky or the paint.

Your assertion that most scientists are atheists, I think that most young scientist might be atheists (college students) - but the more you study physics, esp astro and quantum physics, there are things there, if you really grasp it, that lead us to believe the universe cant be real.

How was it put? its as if the universe is only a simulation in the mind of God. One famous scientist (I forget his name at the moment) was so disturbed by the paradoxes in quantum physics that it literally blew his mind, and tragically he ended his life. He could not accept the idea that the universe might not be 'real' at all.

Personally I try to keep an open mind.

[Andy A.]

Just as a very religious friend of mine (girlfriend, to be precise) can't imagine living in a world with out God, I can't imagine living in a universe that has secrets that humans will never be able to figure out. The notion that humans are just not cut out to understand the 'really tricky stuff' bothers me.

I still maintain that, with enough time and effort, humanity can understand any aspect of the universe. The analogy of explaining color to a blind man is a good one. But then, even now there are rudimentary artificial eyes that allow the blind to see light and even simple shapes. So, instead of trying to explain light to a blind man, we are on the verge of giving him the sense its self. It's pretty cool medicine, and I think also analogous to how humanity will deal with all the 'really screwy' problems of the universe that are simply beyond our ape brains. We'll invent a better brain.

It'll take some time, but we'll get this universe figured out. I can't think of any reason why we can't.

-Andy A

[KenWittlief]

the example of color and blindness only works because blindness is a handicap - people who can see do understand color

so we can grasp the difference of what the one person experiences compaired to a blind person. 'Fixing' the blind person is cheating.

one simple example. we understand things by creating a mental model. If we can build a model in our minds we can grasp it

but our minds are finite

Remember when you first learned of infinity? Our minds cant grasp it. How can the universe go on forever in one direction?

actaully, it cant. Before the big bang there was no time and there was no empty space either! We think of space as being nothing, but there was no nothing!

as the universe expands that boundary between 3 dimensional space, and the nothing-nothing outside it expands - time does not exist outside that boundary

how can that be? My mind cant grasp the idea of empty space not being there beyond the edge of the universe

but thats what the laws of physics require.

I dont think we can understand everything. That doesnt mean we should not try to grasp as much as we can.

[Adam Y.]

but thats what the laws of physics require.

Actually the laws of physics needs a unified theory before we can be making any conclusions about anything. It's annoying but there has to be a single theory that combine all four forces.

the example of color and blindness only works because blindness is a handicap - people who can see do understand color

Actually.... a better example would be picking up the book flatland. In fact that is the whole point of the book. For all we know there could be a million dimenions that exist but we can only see the effects of them in the dimensions we can see which is why the circle saw the cube as being flat.(Please don't yell at me if I got the shapes wrong. I got the basic idea.)

[Mike Ciance]

Originally Posted by Andy A.

I can't imagine living in a universe that has secrets that humans will never be able to figure out. The notion that humans are just not cut out to understand the 'really tricky stuff' bothers me.

I think the progress of science is a continuous reminder that there is more out there to understand than can ever be understood.

As far as atheism, I'm atheist. I was raised catholic (and still am) but in recent years i've passed through different levels of agnosticism and now i am almost purely atheist. I think the matter of "what atheist is", which has been discussed a lot in this thread, is more complicated than defining "God". I also believe that a person can be atheist in certain ways, but not others.

For example, although I highly doubt the existance of an all-powerful spirit that created the universe we live in, I do not rule it out. It may not comply with scientific laws, but the concept makes sense.

I am 100% convinced that no afterlife exists - at least not in any way remotely resembling that which is depicted by various religions. I find that the existing ideas about an afterlife do not comply with logic. I use this arguement to pick apart the common idea of an afterlife:

• the common idea of an afterlife is that when we die our "spirit" move on to another life, but what is our "spirit"?
• if a spirit is supposed to be everything non-physical about us
  • how would our memory be transfered, since our memory is stored as physical information in our brain?
  • our personality is also the product of what is in our brain, would we lose that too?
  • since everything that makes us "us" is stored physically in our brain, would our "spirit" just be a blank slate consisting of nothing but our stream of consiousness?
  • if so,
    • how could the supposed "final judgement" be passed upon all of these theoretically identical entities?
    • would this even count as an afterlife, or is it just "recycling" the soul?
• if a spirit is supposed to be an imprint of our mind, rescued from our body before death
  • what happens to the brain-damaged? are they eternally cursed to a less enjoyable afterlife?
  • what about those who are braindead entirely? would they be able to experience their afterlife at all?
  • what about people who die because their brain is destroyed? are they lost too?

i personally think that people believe in an afterlife because they are afraid of ceasing to exist when they die. i don't think that is really something to be afraid of.

i can tell you one thing: when i no longer exist, i won't care much, will i?

[KenWittlief]

computers make the quetions of body and mind and spirit a little easier to grasp.

I think your soul is like the SW that runs on a computer. If I take a blank CD and weigh it, then put $1000 worth the SW on it, and weigh it again, the CD weight is exactly the same

therefore, SW has no mass - therefore SW is not confind by the laws of physics. It can travel faster than the speed of light (mass = 0) and it is eternal. The embodiement of it in our physical world is not eternal, but we can make copies of copies of copies, and that SW can exist forever without being changed or diminished in the slightest 'bit'

likewise our souls.

Our bodies then are the HW. You install SW on a computer and it controls what that computer will do, within its HW limitations. You put WORD on a 186 and it will run slow, but it will be the same SW as if you put it on a 1G Pentium

The HW limits what the 'soul' can do, but the character of what it wants to do is the same.

Memories - I can use WORD for years and build up a lot of doc files on a hard drive. Erase the HD and all those files are gone, but I can reinstall the SW (WORD) on a new machine, and it will be the same WORD that was on the old one - it just wont remember all the papers that had been written with it.

Spirit is a little more tricky. People use spirit and soul interchangably, but I think that is a mistake. I think our spirit was the counterpart to our phycial bodies, that we interacted with the spiritual world through. our soul connects to the physical world through our body, and our soul use to interact with the spiritual world (Gods domain) through our spirit

and that is unique about the christian religion - that our spirits were lost back when Adam messed up, and to be the way we were intended, our spirits must be 'born-again'

reconnecting us with God - like hooking up the network cable again.

Thats my take on it - I could be totally out in the woods, but if I am, its kinda nice out here in the woods :^)

I think there are things about us, our souls, that control who we are, that control our character - Christianity teaches that we will be given new bodies (a HW upgrade) in the afterlife, we wont be disembodies souls floating around - When Jesus was ressurected He didnt simply come back to life in His old body, He was different - so different that people didnt recognize Him.

how much of this current life experience will be uploaded into that new body? I dont know.

[KarenH]

Originally Posted by Mike Ciance

As far as atheism, I'm atheist. I was raised catholic (and still am) but in recent years i've passed through different levels of agnosticism and now i am almost purely atheist. I think the matter of "what atheist is", which has been discussed a lot in this thread, is more complicated than defining "God". I also believe that a person can be atheist in certain ways, but not others.

For example, although I highly doubt the existance of an all-powerful spirit that created the universe we live in, I do not rule it out. It may not comply with scientific laws, but the concept makes sense.

Your description of your current beliefs--not ruling out the deity whose existence you doubt--closely describes what I believed when I was an agnostic. No matter what "level" of an atheist or an agnostic you are, you cannot still be catholic (Roman Catholic) in your religion. For example, how can you go to Confession, if you don't believe in God? If there is no God, then you cannot have sinned against God, and therefore have no sins to confess! (If you are still feeling guilty, can you be an atheist? )

Anyway, I am amazed when people say that they are Catholic, but are also atheist, or not Christians, or something else that is definitely out of line with Roman Catholic teachings. Most demographers consider Roman Catholicism to belong in the category of Christian religion (belief in God the Creator, Jesus Christ the Savior and Son of God, etc.). Is there now a valid concept that Catholicism is some kind of ethnic rather than religious category?

I'm wondering, how can you say you are "still" Catholic? What do you mean by this?

i personally think that people believe in an afterlife because they are afraid of ceasing to exist when they die. i don't think that is really something to be afraid of.

People often wonder about what will happen to them in the future. High school students may wonder what college will be like, and try to imagine their life in college. Similarly, people may wonder what dying, death, and the afterlife will be like, because these are all future events. Dying is often very painful, and most people are afraid of pain. So, people are often afraid of death and/or dying.

If, after death, consciousness ceases forever--well, try to imagine yourself not existing. Blank. Nothing. It is an unimaginable future. I think many people's minds sort of short circuit when they try to imagine not existing. You can daydream about college, or your future career, or marriage to a Special Somebody. You cannot daydream about your own nonexistence, as seen through your own nonexistent eyes! Belief in an afterlife may be less about fear, and more about what's incomprehensible.

[jonathan lall]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

I think your soul is like the SW that runs on a computer. If I take a blank CD and weigh it, then put $1000 worth the SW on it, and weigh it again, the CD weight is exactly the same

therefore, SW has no mass - therefore SW is not confind by the laws of physics. It can travel faster than the speed of light (mass = 0) and it is eternal. The embodiement of it in our physical world is not eternal, but we can make copies of copies of copies, and that SW can exist forever without being changed or diminished in the slightest 'bit'

likewise our souls.

I like your analogy; it's a very interesting argument, but I take issue with the first premise. A CD is encoded with a series of physical bumps that represent zeros in binary. A CD burner uses the heat from a laser to chemically change the translucency of CD-R dye via phase shifting. These are both physical and observable changes, just as how a floppy disk is magnetized. In any case, mass is not a measure of how substantial something is (just as how software's alleged ability to "travel faster than light" doesn't make it any less grounded in the laws of physics). You can't weigh, for example, an idea, or a concept, such as "dignity" (nor can you draw dignity, to which Simpsons fans will attest). A CD (or similar storage device) is not magically imbued with information; it is physically changed in a manner devised by engineers such that it can be read by a machine devised by engineers. While I'm sure a lot of people on this forum would like to equate engineering with god, I personally don't buy it. Therefore your conclusion that software -- and therefore a soul -- gets to forego the laws of physics is fallacious.

The bottom line is this: Mike -- in addition to pointing out that our thoughts are as far as we know the simple product of neurons firing -- raised some philosophical questions of a religious nature that both religion and science will never be able to answer to any reasonable degree of epistemic satisfaction. Based on this information however, I think it's easy to see his position on why there isn't enough information to justify the existence of a soul.

Like Karen however, I would like to know what Mike meant about still being a Catholic, whether he meant it in an ethnic sense, I suppose in the way Robert Novak is a Jewish Catholic.

[xzvrw2]

Well it looks like this thread has gotten kind of back on track.

I am not an atheist but then again I don't like to consider myself in any religion. I like to think I am in my own little religion. I believe that God created evolution for one instance.


My opinion on atheists are just like any other religion or race, they all have their goods and bads, but all in all its just another brick in the wall...wait wait wait wait....i mean all in all they are all just people.

[Jaine Perotti]

Ok, I have held off on joining this discussion long enough. Generally, I steer away from the political/controversial threads. However, since this thread seems to be keeping relatively calm (considering the topic that is being discussed), I think I will share my opinions with the CD community. Keep in mind that my experience with religion is mostly of a Christian background - I do not claim to make accurate judgments of other world religions. In this case, I will be using Christian examples for the most part.

I am an agnostic, meaning that I believe that one can never know for sure whether there is or is not a God or gods, and that I do not deny or endorse the existence of a higher power(s). I used to be a Christian - I was raised as Christian, and both of my parents are Christian, although they belong to different denominations. In my eighth grade year, however, I started to question my beliefs in God shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Number one, I simply could not believe that God could have allowed the attacks to take place, and kill so many people. I had never questioned this aspect about God before, because all of the violence in the world that I would hear about on the news seemed so distant.

When 9/11 struck, however, I felt that my world had been turned upside down, and all of a sudden, violent death and destruction was only 2 hours away from my house. I did not understand why a being with so much power could allow innocent people to die - ruin the lives of thousands of husbands, wives, children, and loved ones. At age 13, I was beginning to mature more and more intellectually, and it led me to think about the rest of the world - all of the wars, people starving to death, children dying - and I wondered to myself... "If I were God, I would never EVER let people have to suffer, or die unjustly, or allow the preconditions to exist in the FIRST PLACE to let those things happen!" This was the beginning of the loss of my faith.

The other thing that led me to lose my faith was the sermons that were being preached shortly after 9/11 in my mother's church. The pastor in my church viewed the events of 9/11 and the war in Israel as signs of the second coming (the end of the world according to Christians). Now, let me tell you, [1] having your world turned upside down by the 9/11 attacks and struggling to comprehend them, PLUS [2] being told that the world was about to end, was a very stressful thing for a child. Everything I knew as being true - the stability of knowing that the world was going to stay here, and knowing that people are basically good, and believing that life in general is basically good - was being challenged by these events in my life. I did not want the world to end, and I was terrified of it every day. I wondered how God would create a world he was only going to destroy - my world, the only thing that I have - and give people free will only so that they can choose to kill each other, and allow terrible things to happen and ruin people's lives.

One of my main problem with the Christian religion (I am not very knowledgeable of other world religions) is this idea of God's "gift" of free will to human beings. Why did God choose to give Adam and Eve free will, knowing that they would choose to eat from the Tree of Knowledge? Yes, he HAD to know, because according to the Bible, God is omnipotent. Why on earth did he choose to put an evil thing in the garden of Eden, with the full knowledge that it would spell destruction of the world and would cause millions upon millions of people pain and suffering? How can Christians claim that God is all-loving, when he spelled out our own fate to suffer upon the earth that he created? It is almost like putting a chocolate bar in front of a two-year old, telling them not to eat it because it is bad for them, and then walking away - later coming back to find that the two year old had eaten the chocolate bar, and deciding not only to banish them from your home, but banish all of their future descendants as well. Yes, the analogy is extreme, but is it really all that different from what God chose to do to Adam and Eve? Does not sound very nice or loving or forgiving AT ALL to me.

The other problem that I have is the idea of the coexistence of good and evil according to Christianity. According to the Bible, God made everything in the Universe - the angels, the earth, humans, flora and fauna. According to the Bible, God is also perfect. So wouldn't all of the things he created also be perfect? However, the things that God created were not perfect - in fact, so flawed that one of his own angels, Lucifer, decided to rebel against him and ultimately was banished to hell and become known as Satan. If you follow this logic, then technically God created evil. He also created evil when he chose to place the Tree of Knowledge and the serpent in the Garden of Eden. How can an all-loving, perfect God create evil? Create the very thing that causes pain and suffering in this world? How is God therefore perfect? How can we trust him? Why did he create evil in the first place, if he knew that it would cause so many iniquities and terrors in the future? Why does he banish people to hell for acting in the way that he created them to act? None of this is fair!

I have problems not only with the Christian religion, but organized religion as a whole. Lets look at it this way:

The most difficult people you will encounter in life are those who believe that they are inarguably, unquestionably, right. In the work place, the most difficult coworkers you will find are going to be the ones who wont listen to you, or have an open mind about any other ideas besides their own. If you are an engineer, and you are working on a design project, you will not want people on your team who will be so steadfast about what they think, that they are absolutely unwilling to let their ideas be modified or not even used at all.

In the same way, organized religion creates factions of people who believe that they are unarguably, unquestionably, right. This simple fact is what leads to the religious wars that have occurred throughout history and are continuing still today. It is what has lead to the unnecessary, unjust killings of thousands and thousands of people in the past, and unfortunately, will kill many in the future.

Not only is organized religion responsible for many of the wars throughout history, but it also pronounces unfair judgment against those who it believes are immoral or just plain wrong. It allows for very little ability to accept other religious beliefs or ethics - this is almost unarguable, because those who do not believe in God's law are not to attain salvation and are instead doomed to go to hell. When I was a Christian - and I am very ashamed of this - I used to prejudge people who did not believe in God or were not Christian. I know I do not speak for all Christians when I say this - I am merely reporting my own experiences. For example, I remember that I would never go out with a guy who was not Christian, and I would have somewhat of a distrust for non-Christians. I am very embarrassed about this fact, but this is the effect that organized religion can have on people, particularly young children, as I was. I did not realize that there are good, ethical people in this world who are not Christian. Now, I strongly dislike the fact that Christianity says that all non-believers will go to hell, because I know that there are many good people in this world who are non-Christian, and certainly do not deserve to go to hell. How can God send good people to hell? Again, this does not seem remotely fair to me, especially because God is claimed to be just and forgiving.

As much as I dislike organized religion and Christianity, I do see why people choose to practice religion. Not everything about religion is bad. I think the main reason that people turn to religion is because of their desire to feel comfortable with the world around them, and have an explanation for the things that they don't understand. Religion also functions as a guideline for how you conduct your life. Most religions have certain rules about how one is supposed to behave. All of these rules have to do with improving your life, and other people's lives, and consequently the world. Most religions concern themselves of ridding the world of evil. Therefore, religions exist as a means for human beings to acquire happiness - something all human beings are constantly striving for.

I also want to maintain my happiness and improve the world. However, the difference between me and a religious person lies in where I derive the "rules" of my life from, and what sources I use to gain a greater understanding of the world. I derive my ethics from what I feel and observe about people, and what I see as being right and wrong. A religious person instead follows what the religious leaders or texts say should be considered moral behavior. I rely on empirical observations and scientific knowledge to explain the world and the universe, while religious people see the universe in a more religious context - finding ways to link what they see with what they believe.

Well, now that I have written practically a book for everyone to read, I will leave it at that. Please respond in any way you wish. I hope that I have not offended anyone by the statements I have chosen to make. In fact, I SINCERELY, DEEPLY hope that I have not offended anyone. One of the hard things about making controversial posts is the possibility of losing respect of those within the FIRST community. Sometimes, when I read these threads, I am like... no... no don't say that! I respect you, I don't want to know your religious or political affiliation because it may cause me to judge you or respect you differently! In that way, I almost wish that these types of threads were not allowed, but I do enjoy a good intellectual discussion. Along with many people on these forums, I am not sure whether or not this type of discussion should be allowed. I guess that is a decision we all need to think about now.

-- Jaine

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

I like your analogy; it's a very interesting argument, but I take issue with the first premise.

you are mixing together the physical implementation (the CD) with the SW itself (1s and 0s)

how fast you can write or read SW onto a CD or other storage media has nothing to do with the SW being written, the limitation is the physical media

the CD or floppy disk or MP3 player memory does not change in weight (mass) when you erase it, or load it up with SW.

Force = mass times acceleration. If I put 1000 blank CDs in my car and drive around, then write very complex code onto those CDs, my car will not require any change in force to drive around, because those CDs still have the same mass.

Something with zero mass is not governed by our laws of physics - because it is not a 'physical' object.

The only way we know of to transmit SW or information presently is by physical means, the fastest is by electromagnetic energy (light or radio waves)

but there could be spiritual ways to communicate, in which case, our souls (our SW) would not be limited by the laws of physics, because our souls have no mass.

its only a crude analogy, but I think it gets the idea across.

[Ryan M.]

Originally Posted by Mike Ciance

• the common idea of an afterlife is that when we die our "spirit" move on to another life, but what is our "spirit"?
• if a spirit is supposed to be everything non-physical about us
  • how would our memory be transfered, since our memory is stored as physical information in our brain?
  • our personality is also the product of what is in our brain, would we lose that too?
  • since everything that makes us "us" is stored physically in our brain, would our "spirit" just be a blank slate consisting of nothing but our stream of consiousness?
  • if so,
    • how could the supposed "final judgement" be passed upon all of these theoretically identical entities?
    • would this even count as an afterlife, or is it just "recycling" the soul?
• if a spirit is supposed to be an imprint of our mind, rescued from our body before death
  • what happens to the brain-damaged? are they eternally cursed to a less enjoyable afterlife?
  • what about those who are braindead entirely? would they be able to experience their afterlife at all?
  • what about people who die because their brain is destroyed? are they lost too?

i personally think that people believe in an afterlife because they are afraid of ceasing to exist when they die. i don't think that is really something to be afraid of.

The problem with that argument is that your assuming that the spirit or soul or whatchamacallit is somehow seperate from you. Jonathan touched on this, but think about it this way.

Looking at it from an aethistic/no intelligent designer view point: say that, several billion years ago, a singularity decided to explode. (We won't go into why the heck it did that.) Everything from the moment that singularity started to expand to now has been governed by the laws of physics. That means that, through only physics, the Earth was formed, the first life was formed, that life somehow underwent billions of years of evolution, and eventually we ended up with you.

Everything that has happened to you and will happen to you is the result of physics. This thread's thoughtful, insightful posts are the result of how the neurons in your head fired. What you "perceive" as thought isn't thought; it's just physics.

Basically, I feel that your spirit/soul is actually "you." It governs what your body does, what you think, etc. Maybe the brain is a temporary storage vessel for your life's events, but your mind and your soul are connected, so a brain damaged person might lose brain functionality in this life, but in the next they'll get a new body (assuming the Christian perspective) and they won't have the same problems. I don't know if they'd remember (depending on the type of brain damage) what they went through while they lacked full brain functionality, but it wouldn't be a hinderance in the next life. The brain's information on your life events isn't "copied" at the end of your life. It's probably more similar to (going to the computer analogy) a RAID 1 setup, IE a full, running copy of your life experiences. I don't know how that information is "stored," but there are a lot of other things I don't know...

[Mike]

From what I understand from my couple years of CCD lessons, is although many people think heaven is a tangible place, it's really just a state of being closer to God. Therefore, if you pray, you are in heaven.