Until I came along the Science of Identity Foundation had pretty much manged to go quietly about it's business since being founded in 1978 by Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa - Chris Butler.
The A-typical cult leader really living in a mansion in Hawaii carrying on with manipulation and lies, I have started to document it all on my website http://www.cultofbutler.com and found that it bothers them. A lot. I dont care. I want to see this cult exposed for exactly what it is.
My latest project is dissecting the so called Science of Identity which is set out in Butler's book Who Are You
The basic concept of this very convuluted doctrine that is a combination of Hare Krishna, Christianity and Ego is that you are not the body or the mind but soul and realising that you are the soul is how you get to have a reationship with God. Of course neither the existence of the soul or God is proven and I am a born again skeptic by virtue of re-educating myself through the recovery of my cult experience, but Butler attempts to use Science to validate his claims and bolster his credibility.
The following is one claim which he makes to prove that you are not really the body.
Let me ask you a few simple questions: Do you exist at this moment? Did you exist five years ago? Are you your body? Most people would answer “yes” to all three questions. But if you identify your body as yourself, and simultaneously accept that you exist now and also existed five years ago, then you have a problem: The body you had five years ago does not exist today. There is a dynamic turnover of atoms and molecules which make up your body. There isn’t a single particle of matter—not one atom—present in your body today that was present five years ago. The body you have today is not the same body you had five years ago. It’s not that the body you had still exists but has now changed somewhat. No. The body you had is gone. That collection of atoms appearing as flesh, bone, blood, hair, and so on no longer exists. Yet you still exist.
I suspect that this can be proven as baloney, although I want for it to be well referenced and credibly refuted baloney.