It completely tickles me to have little teenage queens forget that they have it on and start working on grammar assignments in my tiara.

That sounds cute.

a rock band with infective endocarditis.

Electric or acoustic?

It completely tickles me to have little teenage queens forget that they have it on and start working on grammar assignments in my tiara.

I love that image.

Yeah, it really is. And I don't have enough fake swords, so I also have a frosting tool and two dough kneading attachments for a mixer that I never use that I brought in as swords and daggers for Benvolio, Tybalt and Mercutio.

Teenagers "fencing" with dough kneaders and starting to use "do your bite your thumb at me, sir?!" as casual classroom insults?

Comedy GOLD.

I would stamp my feet and growl, but have been informed by certain people that doing that is terribly cute, not fierce

Hubby and I were walking home from dinner one night, when we passed a couple of girls looking in windows and squealing in delight at the displays. We managed to muffle our grins, but they heard him say to me, "They're cute." They spun on us, outraged, and one of them stamped her foot and proclaimed, "Not cute!" Hubby and I couldn't help but laugh, and the other one made kitten spitting noises and waved her curled fingers at us. They then scurried away, and we went home, still laughing.

They spun on us, outraged, and one of them stamped her foot and proclaimed, "Not cute!" Hubby and I couldn't help but laugh, and the other one made kitten spitting noises and waved her curled fingers at us.

Oh. Oh dear.

I do that. I really AM a teenage girl at heart, aren't I?

Yeah. But so are we all, really.

They spun on us, outraged, and one of them stamped her foot and proclaimed, "Not cute!"

This reminds me of my five year old daughter, only it's "Not fair!" and she does this deeply furrowed brow thing to let you know she's really mad.

"do your bite your thumb at me, sir?!" as casual classroom insults?

Awwww. That was a standard in my middle school, too.

Hmm - Ok I'm atheist with maybe a slightly different take on atheism. First I think that all questions of faith or lack thereof start with an emotional base. That doesn't mean reason is not important; if you can't find rational arguments for your emotional bias then you need to find a way to change it; mind you I don't think proof in any absolute way will ever be found; but I try to have a reasonable argument why my viewpoint is not insane or stupid.

(Warning; what follows is not a rant -but it may be a bit of a meander.)

OK my emotional basis is a simple one. When I was pretty young I came to accept the emotional truth that I will come to an end some day. I did not always exist, and I will not always exist. The day will come when I am not in heaven or hell or reincarnated or drifting around on a different plane. I will be gone. There won't even be a little bit of me left to know that I'm gone. That was not an easy thing to accept, and once made that leap is made, belief it an afterlife seems kind of like a kindly lie told for people who can't bear a harsh truth. Note that I'm not arguming this is actually the case; even if belief in an afterlife is wrong I'm sure most people who believe it in think about it hard and some point and continue to do so. This is simply the EMOTIONAL point I'm coming from - the bias you are dealing with when discussing the subject with me. However this does not mean I don't belief in the soul , the "I'. It simply means I think it is a matterial property - a particular organization of information that will end with my body is in fact part of the informational structure of my body.

OK - so what rational backing do I find for my particular emotional truth?

This is where the meander begins - because I have to start with Occams Razor, and make a less simple minded use of it than I sometimes see. Most people have propably heard some it is stated that "the simplest explaination that fits all the fact is most likely to be true." What is important (and what keeps it from being a tautological principle) is that it is probabilist and operates over times. It applies to areas where you don't have enough information to determine the truth, and have multiple hypothesis that appear equally likely on their face. Given that the simplest explanation that fits know facts is mostly likely to be true when you have some more facts and are able to eliminate hypothesis on some other basis. Note that it won't always turn out that way. Sometimes when new facts are discovered, the simpler hypothesis will be the one eliminated. But still until such facts are discovered the simplest explaination uncontradicted by known facts is the way to bet.

[Again - only it's acceptance as probablistic over time keeps this from being tautological. If you simply say "the simplest explanation that fits all the facts is the correct one" once all the facts are known - well that would be tautological; if you know know ALL the facts you don't have to worry about what is simplest to determine what is true; even allowing for normal imperfection in our knowledge you can get to the point where the facts support only one hypothesis anyone can reasonably come up with.)

OK so the digression over, how does the soul or existence simply being a property of matter fit with that very blunt razor? Because if you take the soul and being the "I" what makes you an individual , it can be altered by physical changes in myriad ways. Brain damage can alter the soul. Drugs can alter the soul. Chemical malfunctions in the body can alter the soul. Now I know there may be some disagreement over whether what is altered is really the soul. But, as an example someone close to me was a really great person for until he was 18. At 18 he experimented with drugs ,including LSD; he quit - but the personality changes were long term; he became self-rightous, violent on occasion, even physically abusive towards women. And then another chemical Prozac, helped him recover his balance, and he bacame the same sweet, (continued...)