Reincarnation.
28 Jan 2013, 11:43 pm
MarsCoban wrote:
graywyvern wrote:
reincarnation only makes sense in a world without population growth. in 10,000 BC there were only 1 million humans on earth.
today there is a total of 7,000 times that number. where did all the extra souls come from?
today there is a total of 7,000 times that number. where did all the extra souls come from?
Perhaps from other regions of the Universe?
That sounds like... something.
28 Jan 2013, 11:52 pm
puddingmouse wrote:
ripped wrote:
You consider the belief in reincarnation as close minded?
I consider absolute certainty in that belief closed minded, especially given the lack of scientific evidence. Moreover, absolute certainty that you understand reincarnation, even if you believe in it, is closed minded.
Christians who are absolutely certain of their beliefs scare me, too.
I agree. That, and atheists who are absolutely certain of THEIR own opnion. So Hell bent, that they get hostile and childish when you even suggest anything otherwise, even going so far as to put words in your mouth and run with it. Nuttin' intelligent about that if you ask me.
29 Jan 2013, 6:37 am
Vexcalibur wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
The "kid" will tell you something then. You probably wasted 45 years of your life reading books when you could be experiencing these things directly through intensive meditation. It would only take you 1 year.
Been there done that. I was able to have visions of supposed past lives.
But now I am a super skeptic about anything supernatural. Tons of reasons made me rethink just about everything, including the results of my meditations.
Self-Suggestion is the road to damnation. There's an alternative explanation that is also simpler than "past lives exist and through meditations I witnessed them". And it is that through meditation I entered a dream state, and when my sub-conscious saw the extreme need I had for answers, it fabricated a good story, like it tends to do all the time. That sub-conscious is a Jerk.
Once I woke up and smell the reality, I figured, my past life was full of cliches about a past culture that didn't turn out to be true, but that I assimilated through mass media...
'To every complex issue is a simple easy and convenient answer which is almost always wrong.'
29 Jan 2013, 6:46 am
CaptainTrips222 wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
ripped wrote:
You consider the belief in reincarnation as close minded?
I consider absolute certainty in that belief closed minded, especially given the lack of scientific evidence. Moreover, absolute certainty that you understand reincarnation, even if you believe in it, is closed minded.
Christians who are absolutely certain of their beliefs scare me, too.
I agree. That, and atheists who are absolutely certain of THEIR own opnion. So Hell bent, that they get hostile and childish when you even suggest anything otherwise, even going so far as to put words in your mouth and run with it. Nuttin' intelligent about that if you ask me.
I wanted to reply to puddingmouse but it seemed the moment had passed.
However you have provided me with a second opportunity, so it would be remiss of me to waste it.
It is perfectly common to react with fear when encountering deep faith, especially with regards to things unseen or pertaining to death.
This is perfectly natural and normal and unnecessary.
29 Jan 2013, 11:40 am
ModusPonens wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
The "kid" will tell you something then. You probably wasted 45 years of your life reading books when you could be experiencing these things directly through intensive meditation. It would only take you 1 year.
Been there done that. I was able to have visions of supposed past lives.
But now I am a super skeptic about anything supernatural. Tons of reasons made me rethink just about everything, including the results of my meditations.
Self-Suggestion is the road to damnation. There's an alternative explanation that is also simpler than "past lives exist and through meditations I witnessed them". And it is that through meditation I entered a dream state, and when my sub-conscious saw the extreme need I had for answers, it fabricated a good story, like it tends to do all the time. That sub-conscious is a Jerk.
Once I woke up and smell the reality, I figured, my past life was full of cliches about a past culture that didn't turn out to be true, but that I assimilated through mass media...
Please describe the meditations. What exactly were the mental factors present at the time of these visions?
I repeat the question: please describe what was the meditation. What state of mind did you atained in order to have visions?
I would like to know to see if the state of mind you describe is adequate to knowing past lives or if it's unfit for it.
Regarding the population growth, acording to buddhism you can be reborn as a human, as an animal or indeed as other forms of non-physical life, from not so subtle to very subtle. So it's not a subject that contradicts rebirth. The only way to deny the existence of rebirth is by finding a contradiction, which makes it formaly ilogical. You can't prove the existence of rebirth either since you don't have a falsifiable prediction which can be measured by instruments.
As a final note, it is estimated that matter known to us constitutes 16% of the total matter of the universe. That is, science doesn't know what 84% of the universe is made of. This of course can't be used as an argument for rebirth. However, it can be used as an argument against the arrogance of people who claim to view things from a scientific point of view. Any real scientist is humbled by not knowing 84% of the universe, so passing judgement on rebirth as if it is crazy nonsense is quite contrary to the humble spirit of true science.
29 Jan 2013, 12:30 pm
CaptainTrips222 wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
ripped wrote:
You consider the belief in reincarnation as close minded?
I consider absolute certainty in that belief closed minded, especially given the lack of scientific evidence. Moreover, absolute certainty that you understand reincarnation, even if you believe in it, is closed minded.
Christians who are absolutely certain of their beliefs scare me, too.
I agree. That, and atheists who are absolutely certain of THEIR own opnion. So Hell bent, that they get hostile and childish when you even suggest anything otherwise, even going so far as to put words in your mouth and run with it. Nuttin' intelligent about that if you ask me.
I'm not absolute certain of my atheism.
29 Jan 2013, 5:27 pm
ripped wrote:
CaptainTrips222 wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
ripped wrote:
You consider the belief in reincarnation as close minded?
I consider absolute certainty in that belief closed minded, especially given the lack of scientific evidence. Moreover, absolute certainty that you understand reincarnation, even if you believe in it, is closed minded.
Christians who are absolutely certain of their beliefs scare me, too.
I agree. That, and atheists who are absolutely certain of THEIR own opnion. So Hell bent, that they get hostile and childish when you even suggest anything otherwise, even going so far as to put words in your mouth and run with it. Nuttin' intelligent about that if you ask me.
I wanted to reply to puddingmouse but it seemed the moment had passed.
However you have provided me with a second opportunity, so it would be remiss of me to waste it.
It is perfectly common to react with fear when encountering deep faith, especially with regards to things unseen or pertaining to death.
This is perfectly natural and normal and unnecessary.
Did you read what I said? I'm not talking about deep faith. I'm talking about even the slightest suggestion of anything other than atheism. And they ain't afraid, just childish and obnoxious.
29 Jan 2013, 11:21 pm
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.
_________________
Averages
AS: 138.8
NT : 54.6
29 Jan 2013, 11:24 pm
Yuugiri wrote:
... 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.
The plural of "Anecdote" is not "Data".
_________________
30 Jan 2013, 1:08 am
Fnord wrote:
The plural of "Anecdote" is not "Data".
I never said it was...? I said you can "measure" it, meaning you can record it and instances of occurrence and corroboration between distinct accounts. In that context, it can indeed be valid, though it does not trump hard evidence. Psychology is one example of a science that does this, which is why it's commonly referred to as a "soft science'.
_________________
Averages
AS: 138.8
NT : 54.6
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.
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?
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.
_________________
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.
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
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;
_________________
