Page 12 of 12 [ 184 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

ripped
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 651

30 Jan 2013, 3:19 am

Yuugiri wrote:
Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we should discard what we do already know. The nature of skepticism and the scientific method is that we can only confirm what is observed. It is the only absolute truth, if you will. Now, that is not to say that the lens through which we observe something can never be improved upon, merely that if something is observed, there is necessarily an explanation for the reason behind its existence. That's where experimentation comes in, where we consistently test this observation to see if it is a constant phenomenon. Conversely, if something is not observed (consistently, I might add), there is no reason to give it any more credence than you'd give to one who believes in unicorns or that the Earth is hollow.

Therefore, there's no reason to believe in reincarnation. No logical reason, anyway. If it makes you feel better and hurts no one, go for it. Just don't try to argue in favor of it without evidence.

Note: It is important to recognize that "observing" something effectively means measuring it. While you can collect a sum of anecdotal evidence and "measure" that, there's no reason to believe that reincarnation is the cause of that evidence when another, previously established phenomena (in this case, your brain essentially lying to you) accounts for it tidily.


There is nothing said here with which I disagree.
I would like it noted however that at the beginning of this thread, the forum were asked for their opinions, not proofs.
Is it stating the obvious to say that reincarnation cannot be proven yet anyway?



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,770

30 Jan 2013, 3:55 am

You'll reincarnate as "nothingness" when you die, kinda like before you were born.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,008
Location: Stendec

30 Jan 2013, 11:23 am

ripped wrote:
Is it stating the obvious to say that reincarnation cannot be proven yet anyway?

Yes, but that's okay, because the same can be said for Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabra, King Solomon the Wise, Progressive Politics, the Ressurection, Everlasting Love, and extra-terrestrial involvement in UFOs and Pyramids.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


Yuugiri
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2013
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,049
Location: Washington

30 Jan 2013, 1:01 pm

ripped wrote:
There is nothing said here with which I disagree.
I would like it noted however that at the beginning of this thread, the forum were asked for their opinions, not proofs.

Yes, I know. However, I think it's important to recognize such beliefs are not founded in reason, but in emotion. ModusPonens, and perhaps a few others I've seen, seem to be saying that there is a good reason to believe in reincarnation based on anecdotes. I'm saying that it's not a good reason.


_________________
Averages
AS: 138.8
NT : 54.6


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,008
Location: Stendec

30 Jan 2013, 1:46 pm

Yuugiri wrote:
ripped wrote:
There is nothing said here with which I disagree. I would like it noted however that at the beginning of this thread, the forum were asked for their opinions, not proofs.
Yes, I know. However, I think it's important to recognize such beliefs are not founded in reason, but in emotion. ModusPonens, and perhaps a few others I've seen, seem to be saying that there is a good reason to believe in reincarnation based on anecdotes. I'm saying that it's not a good reason.

Further, if an idea that is claimed to be valid in a scientific sense has the following features:
  • The claim contributes less to progress than simpler alternate ideas over the centuries;
  • The claim can not be demonstrated under controlled conditions;
  • The claim requires the invention of a mysterious and immeasurable force for the principles of the claim to work;
  • The mysterious and immeasurable force works only for the principle of the claim;
  • Proponents of the claim have found it extremely difficult (if not impossible) to demonstrate any reliable mechanism of cause-and-effect;
  • Proponents of the claim make no attempt to evaluate the claim in relation to known physical principles;
  • Proponents of the claim show a distinct lack of understanding of known physical principles;
  • Proponents of the claim declare conflicting evidence to be irrelevant;
  • Proponents of the claim personalize their claim and attack anyone who provides conflicting evidence;
Then it can be safely stated that the claim itself is both spurious and lacking in validity.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 715

30 Jan 2013, 3:18 pm

Yuugiri wrote:
ripped wrote:
There is nothing said here with which I disagree.
I would like it noted however that at the beginning of this thread, the forum were asked for their opinions, not proofs.

Yes, I know. However, I think it's important to recognize such beliefs are not founded in reason, but in emotion. ModusPonens, and perhaps a few others I've seen, seem to be saying that there is a good reason to believe in reincarnation based on anecdotes. I'm saying that it's not a good reason.


No, what I'm saying is that there are reasons not to be arrogant about this. Not once I said that Stevenson's books constitutes proof (on the contrary). I see your previous post was directed at me. Please read my coments in this topic before posting things which don't apply to me.

There are good reasons for me to believe it, It's not of course the same as believing santa clauss as the idea of santa clauss is self contradictory. Rebirth is not self contradictory.

From the formal logic POV it's an undecidable problem, if we do not assume that there is no rebirth. It belongs to the realm of religion. Yes, there are emotional aspects to it, but there are also rational ones. If there weren't, I wouldn't believe in rebirth.



ripped
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 651

30 Jan 2013, 8:26 pm

Yuugiri wrote:
ripped wrote:
There is nothing said here with which I disagree.
I would like it noted however that at the beginning of this thread, the forum were asked for their opinions, not proofs.

Yes, I know. However, I think it's important to recognize such beliefs are not founded in reason, but in emotion.

It is not your place to tell me what my motivations are.
Yuugiri wrote:
ModusPonens, and perhaps a few others I've seen, seem to be saying that there is a good reason to believe in reincarnation based on anecdotes.

Quote your source directly or stop putting words in other peoples mouths.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,008
Location: Stendec

31 Jan 2013, 10:59 am

Yuugiri wrote:
ModusPonens, and perhaps a few others I've seen, seem to be saying that there is a good reason to believe in reincarnation based on anecdotes.

The plural of "Anecdote" is not "Evidence".


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.