Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reincarnation

Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 6:54:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Do you believe in reincarnation?

If so, why?

If not, why?

Evidence

Link 1 - http://www.childpastlives.org...
Link 2 - http://www.childpastlives.org...
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 7:37:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I do not believe in reincarnation because that would require the existence of some part of consciousness that was 'transcendent', there appears to be no real evidence of that.

I read part of the first link, very interesting but purely anecdotal. The reader can not ascertain the truth of the story at all.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 7:41:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
In the orthodox conception of a person dying and then having their ghost move into a new body that forgets its past life, no.

I haven't really been convinced of it, and it is one of those things that would be hard to prove without there still being some reasonable doubt.

It is one of those beliefs that I don't feel is relevant.

There are other conceptions of reincarnation that I could go with. The idea that reincarnation is something that happens during your own lifetime is probably the closest to my opinion on the matter.

There are those who believe that people never change, but I know this to be false. I am not the same person I was a year ago, and a year ago I was not the same person I was a year before that.

I feel like I've lived many different lives, I've been on many different adventures, and I don't see an end to it.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 7:59:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Reincarnation is a concept that is hard to prove mainly, as Cerebral stated, that it requires the validation of a conscience that is transcendent and can be passed from body to soul....

The two cases that you provided, in particular, comes from the same book written by Ian Stevenson, a prominent researcher on the case of reincarnation. Stevenson is generally criticized by skeptic groups for his flawed methology (including: conveniently collecting stories that were unconventional), the problem of interview bias during his conversations of those who were supposedly reincarnated (and confirmation bias), and so on....There have been many mundane explanations for his cases that have been offered--ranging from investigation, deception, to desire to identify a higher social class.

Granted, Stevenson stated that he himself did not offer convincing evidence for reincarnation, though his research is at least thought-provoking, but not compelling evidence for reincarnation.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 8:01:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 7:37:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I do not believe in reincarnation because that would require the existence of some part of consciousness that was 'transcendent', there appears to be no real evidence of that.

I read part of the first link, very interesting but purely anecdotal. The reader can not ascertain the truth of the story at all.

Here's what does not make sense about that. If something is transcendent, how can there be evidence for or against it? Its entirely based on what you believe and what you feel, you cannot try to use intellectual logic to rationalize a concept that is said to supersede the intellect.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 8:09:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 8:01:54 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 7:37:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I do not believe in reincarnation because that would require the existence of some part of consciousness that was 'transcendent', there appears to be no real evidence of that.

I read part of the first link, very interesting but purely anecdotal. The reader can not ascertain the truth of the story at all.

Here's what does not make sense about that. If something is transcendent, how can there be evidence for or against it? Its entirely based on what you believe and what you feel, you cannot try to use intellectual logic to rationalize a concept that is said to supersede the intellect.

I use transcendent in the loosest sense of the word, to speak of somehting truly transcendent is to speak of pixie dust and magic.

For there to be reincaration there needs to be an aspect of the consciouness that can exist independently of the brain.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 8:16:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 8:09:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:01:54 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 7:37:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I do not believe in reincarnation because that would require the existence of some part of consciousness that was 'transcendent', there appears to be no real evidence of that.

I read part of the first link, very interesting but purely anecdotal. The reader can not ascertain the truth of the story at all.

Here's what does not make sense about that. If something is transcendent, how can there be evidence for or against it? Its entirely based on what you believe and what you feel, you cannot try to use intellectual logic to rationalize a concept that is said to supersede the intellect.

I use transcendent in the loosest sense of the word, to speak of somehting truly transcendent is to speak of pixie dust and magic.

For there to be reincaration there needs to be an aspect of the consciouness that can exist independently of the brain.

That is what we refer to as "the soul". To call the concept "pixie dust and magic" means that you are STILL trying to rationalize it using intellectual logic - it still being a concept above the scope of the intellect. By calling the concept "pixie dust and magic" you are confining your understanding of POSSIBILITY to only that which is possible in our CURRENT state of consciousness. If there is indeed an alternate consciousness, we would not know of it in our current one. How then can you speak of that which you do not know with such certainty? It is as illogical to definitively believe in the existence of reincarnation as it is illogical to definitively believe in its non-existence.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 8:19:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 8:16:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:09:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:01:54 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 7:37:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I do not believe in reincarnation because that would require the existence of some part of consciousness that was 'transcendent', there appears to be no real evidence of that.

I read part of the first link, very interesting but purely anecdotal. The reader can not ascertain the truth of the story at all.

Here's what does not make sense about that. If something is transcendent, how can there be evidence for or against it? Its entirely based on what you believe and what you feel, you cannot try to use intellectual logic to rationalize a concept that is said to supersede the intellect.

I use transcendent in the loosest sense of the word, to speak of somehting truly transcendent is to speak of pixie dust and magic.

For there to be reincaration there needs to be an aspect of the consciouness that can exist independently of the brain.

That is what we refer to as "the soul".

For which there is no evidence.

To call the concept "pixie dust and magic" means that you are STILL trying to rationalize it using intellectual logic - it still being a concept above the scope of the intellect.

No I am not, I have discounted the concept of a transcendent soul.

By calling the concept "pixie dust and magic" you are confining your understanding of POSSIBILITY to only that which is possible in our CURRENT state of consciousness. If there is indeed an alternate consciousness, we would not know of it in our current one. How then can you speak of that which you do not know with such certainty? It is as illogical to definitively believe in the existence of reincarnation as it is illogical to definitively believe in its non-existence.

There is no reason to believe in reincarnation, no reason to suppose the existence of a soul. Show me some evidence and I will reconsider.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 8:26:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 8:19:17 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:16:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:09:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:01:54 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 7:37:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I do not believe in reincarnation because that would require the existence of some part of consciousness that was 'transcendent', there appears to be no real evidence of that.

I read part of the first link, very interesting but purely anecdotal. The reader can not ascertain the truth of the story at all.

Here's what does not make sense about that. If something is transcendent, how can there be evidence for or against it? Its entirely based on what you believe and what you feel, you cannot try to use intellectual logic to rationalize a concept that is said to supersede the intellect.

I use transcendent in the loosest sense of the word, to speak of somehting truly transcendent is to speak of pixie dust and magic.

For there to be reincaration there needs to be an aspect of the consciouness that can exist independently of the brain.

That is what we refer to as "the soul".

For which there is no evidence.

To call the concept "pixie dust and magic" means that you are STILL trying to rationalize it using intellectual logic - it still being a concept above the scope of the intellect.

No I am not, I have discounted the concept of a transcendent soul.

By calling the concept "pixie dust and magic" you are confining your understanding of POSSIBILITY to only that which is possible in our CURRENT state of consciousness. If there is indeed an alternate consciousness, we would not know of it in our current one. How then can you speak of that which you do not know with such certainty? It is as illogical to definitively believe in the existence of reincarnation as it is illogical to definitively believe in its non-existence.

There is no reason to believe in reincarnation, no reason to suppose the existence of a soul. Show me some evidence and I will reconsider.

Didn't you get that the message of my past 2 posts was that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE because evidence cannot exist? Evidence only applies to ALL concepts that are BOUND by our current consciousness. If there is a concept that is supposed to be OUTSIDE our current consciousness, we cannot prove or disprove it because it is not within the realm of our perception. You keep demanding evidence that an alternate consciousness exists whereas, if it didn't , there would be no evidence in our current consciousness, and if it really DID, there would STILL be no evidence. The logical approach to this understanding is agnosticism, definitive disbelief is as illogical as definitive belief.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 8:36:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 8:26:40 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:19:17 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:16:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:09:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:01:54 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 7:37:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I do not believe in reincarnation because that would require the existence of some part of consciousness that was 'transcendent', there appears to be no real evidence of that.

I read part of the first link, very interesting but purely anecdotal. The reader can not ascertain the truth of the story at all.

Here's what does not make sense about that. If something is transcendent, how can there be evidence for or against it? Its entirely based on what you believe and what you feel, you cannot try to use intellectual logic to rationalize a concept that is said to supersede the intellect.

I use transcendent in the loosest sense of the word, to speak of somehting truly transcendent is to speak of pixie dust and magic.

For there to be reincaration there needs to be an aspect of the consciouness that can exist independently of the brain.

That is what we refer to as "the soul".

For which there is no evidence.

To call the concept "pixie dust and magic" means that you are STILL trying to rationalize it using intellectual logic - it still being a concept above the scope of the intellect.

No I am not, I have discounted the concept of a transcendent soul.

By calling the concept "pixie dust and magic" you are confining your understanding of POSSIBILITY to only that which is possible in our CURRENT state of consciousness. If there is indeed an alternate consciousness, we would not know of it in our current one. How then can you speak of that which you do not know with such certainty? It is as illogical to definitively believe in the existence of reincarnation as it is illogical to definitively believe in its non-existence.

There is no reason to believe in reincarnation, no reason to suppose the existence of a soul. Show me some evidence and I will reconsider.

Didn't you get that the message of my past 2 posts was that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE because evidence cannot exist?

How fvcking arrogant are you? Are you attempting to become the theist version of Izbo?

Evidence only applies to ALL concepts that are BOUND by our current consciousness. If there is a concept that is supposed to be OUTSIDE our current consciousness, we cannot prove or disprove it because it is not within the realm of our perception. You keep demanding evidence that an alternate consciousness exists whereas, if it didn't , there would be no evidence in our current consciousness, and if it really DID, there would STILL be no evidence. The logical approach to this understanding is agnosticism, definitive disbelief is as illogical as definitive belief.

I HAVE DISCOUNTED THE VERY CONCEPT OF TRANSCENDENCE
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 8:39:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
To 00ike,

I understand your point, though may I ask: if concepts that are supposed to transcend the physical senses and dimensions (such as the soul, or reincarnation) are formulated, how can we show them as being right or wrong? Do we view them with detachment since they cannot be proven or debunked?

For example, since God is supposed to be transcendent (which is a common attribute of him), then by your reasoning we have no way to prove or disprove his existence...Is that correct? If so, doesn't that fit more with an agnostic position, not a theist one?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 8:42:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 8:36:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:26:40 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:19:17 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:16:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:09:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:01:54 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 7:37:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I do not believe in reincarnation because that would require the existence of some part of consciousness that was 'transcendent', there appears to be no real evidence of that.

I read part of the first link, very interesting but purely anecdotal. The reader can not ascertain the truth of the story at all.

Here's what does not make sense about that. If something is transcendent, how can there be evidence for or against it? Its entirely based on what you believe and what you feel, you cannot try to use intellectual logic to rationalize a concept that is said to supersede the intellect.

I use transcendent in the loosest sense of the word, to speak of somehting truly transcendent is to speak of pixie dust and magic.

For there to be reincaration there needs to be an aspect of the consciouness that can exist independently of the brain.

That is what we refer to as "the soul".

For which there is no evidence.

To call the concept "pixie dust and magic" means that you are STILL trying to rationalize it using intellectual logic - it still being a concept above the scope of the intellect.

No I am not, I have discounted the concept of a transcendent soul.

By calling the concept "pixie dust and magic" you are confining your understanding of POSSIBILITY to only that which is possible in our CURRENT state of consciousness. If there is indeed an alternate consciousness, we would not know of it in our current one. How then can you speak of that which you do not know with such certainty? It is as illogical to definitively believe in the existence of reincarnation as it is illogical to definitively believe in its non-existence.

There is no reason to believe in reincarnation, no reason to suppose the existence of a soul. Show me some evidence and I will reconsider.

Didn't you get that the message of my past 2 posts was that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE because evidence cannot exist?

How fvcking arrogant are you? Are you attempting to become the theist version of Izbo?

Ad Hominem. Although, I'm a little surprised, I thought we were having a good discussion. I guess not.
Evidence only applies to ALL concepts that are BOUND by our current consciousness. If there is a concept that is supposed to be OUTSIDE our current consciousness, we cannot prove or disprove it because it is not within the realm of our perception. You keep demanding evidence that an alternate consciousness exists whereas, if it didn't , there would be no evidence in our current consciousness, and if it really DID, there would STILL be no evidence. The logical approach to this understanding is agnosticism, definitive disbelief is as illogical as definitive belief.

I HAVE DISCOUNTED THE VERY CONCEPT OF TRANSCENDENCE

I was saying that it makes no sense to discount transcendence because if transcendence existed, you wouldn't know, and there wouldn't be evidence either way. Discounting or counting transcendence makes the assumption that IF it did exist, it can be proved, when that isn't true.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 8:44:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 8:39:17 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
To 00ike,

I understand your point, though may I ask: if concepts that are supposed to transcend the physical senses and dimensions (such as the soul, or reincarnation) are formulated, how can we show them as being right or wrong? Do we view them with detachment since they cannot be proven or debunked?

For example, since God is supposed to be transcendent (which is a common attribute of him), then by your reasoning we have no way to prove or disprove his existence...Is that correct? If so, doesn't that fit more with an agnostic position, not a theist one?

Agnostic theism is also possible. But you're right, it fits with an agnostic one...Which I'm trying to prove to Narcissist makes the most sense. Although, he compares me to Izbo for doing so, though I can't recall any moment of me trolling or insulting him.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 8:48:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 8:42:30 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:36:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:26:40 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:19:17 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:16:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:09:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:01:54 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 7:37:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I do not believe in reincarnation because that would require the existence of some part of consciousness that was 'transcendent', there appears to be no real evidence of that.

I read part of the first link, very interesting but purely anecdotal. The reader can not ascertain the truth of the story at all.

Here's what does not make sense about that. If something is transcendent, how can there be evidence for or against it? Its entirely based on what you believe and what you feel, you cannot try to use intellectual logic to rationalize a concept that is said to supersede the intellect.

I use transcendent in the loosest sense of the word, to speak of somehting truly transcendent is to speak of pixie dust and magic.

For there to be reincaration there needs to be an aspect of the consciouness that can exist independently of the brain.

That is what we refer to as "the soul".

For which there is no evidence.

To call the concept "pixie dust and magic" means that you are STILL trying to rationalize it using intellectual logic - it still being a concept above the scope of the intellect.

No I am not, I have discounted the concept of a transcendent soul.

By calling the concept "pixie dust and magic" you are confining your understanding of POSSIBILITY to only that which is possible in our CURRENT state of consciousness. If there is indeed an alternate consciousness, we would not know of it in our current one. How then can you speak of that which you do not know with such certainty? It is as illogical to definitively believe in the existence of reincarnation as it is illogical to definitively believe in its non-existence.

There is no reason to believe in reincarnation, no reason to suppose the existence of a soul. Show me some evidence and I will reconsider.

Didn't you get that the message of my past 2 posts was that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE because evidence cannot exist?

How fvcking arrogant are you? Are you attempting to become the theist version of Izbo?

Ad Hominem. Although, I'm a little surprised, I thought we were having a good discussion. I guess not.

And you were strawmanning me.
To repeat I have already rejected the use of the word transcendent, to speak of something as being transcendant is bull. If it exists it falls into the remit of science and evidence.

Evidence only applies to ALL concepts that are BOUND by our current consciousness. If there is a concept that is supposed to be OUTSIDE our current consciousness, we cannot prove or disprove it because it is not within the realm of our perception. You keep demanding evidence that an alternate consciousness exists whereas, if it didn't , there would be no evidence in our current consciousness, and if it really DID, there would STILL be no evidence. The logical approach to this understanding is agnosticism, definitive disbelief is as illogical as definitive belief.

I HAVE DISCOUNTED THE VERY CONCEPT OF TRANSCENDENCE

I was saying that it makes no sense to discount transcendence because if transcendence existed, you wouldn't know, and there wouldn't be evidence either way. Discounting or counting transcendence makes the assumption that IF it did exist, it can be proved, when that isn't true.

Something either exists or does not. Something can not exist yet be utterly undetectable in any way shape or form... unless it simply exists in a parallel universe that never overlaps with our own. To speak of transcendence is to speak of nothing.

If the soul exists then it exists... evidence may be sought.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 8:55:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't mean to aggravate you, but that is still small thinking. Those are some very sound rules for proof of the existence of something, but they only apply to the intellect and the world that we perceive. Something that cannot be perceived, but exists is still within the realm of our consciousness, just that it is outside our 5 senses. If something is OUTSIDE the realm of our consciousness, the most you can say is that it does not exist in our current consciousness. You cannot really say that it does not exist all together.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 9:01:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 8:55:36 AM, 000ike wrote:
I don't mean to aggravate you,

I may have overeacted.

but that is still small thinking. Those are some very sound rules for proof of the existence of something, but they only apply to the intellect and the world that we perceive. Something that cannot be perceived, but exists is still within the realm of our consciousness, just that it is outside our 5 senses. If something is OUTSIDE the realm of our consciousness, the most you can say is that it does not exist in our current consciousness. You cannot really say that it does not exist all together.

Let us imagine that laying over this reality is another, inhabited by invisible amorphous beings. At this very point the room you are in could be full of them, they could walking through me as we speak. They do not effect this universe and we do not effect theirs.

We have no evidence for or against them... so do believe in them? No you don't do you. We naturally discount outlandish claims that we have no evidence for.

Are these beings transcendent... no... they simply occupy what is effectively a seperate reality.

If exert a minor gravtic effect on this universe... or something materialise to abduct children then they became part of our universe and may be studied.

This is why I am free to discount bs notions like transcendence.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 9:07:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 9:01:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/3/2011 8:55:36 AM, 000ike wrote:
I don't mean to aggravate you,

I may have overeacted.

but that is still small thinking. Those are some very sound rules for proof of the existence of something, but they only apply to the intellect and the world that we perceive. Something that cannot be perceived, but exists is still within the realm of our consciousness, just that it is outside our 5 senses. If something is OUTSIDE the realm of our consciousness, the most you can say is that it does not exist in our current consciousness. You cannot really say that it does not exist all together.

Let us imagine that laying over this reality is another, inhabited by invisible amorphous beings. At this very point the room you are in could be full of them, they could walking through me as we speak. They do not effect this universe and we do not effect theirs.

We have no evidence for or against them... so do believe in them? No you don't do you. We naturally discount outlandish claims that we have no evidence for.

Are these beings transcendent... no... they simply occupy what is effectively a seperate reality.

If exert a minor gravtic effect on this universe... or something materialise to abduct children then they became part of our universe and may be studied.

This is why I am free to discount bs notions like transcendence.

I see what you're saying. You're saying that it does not matter and if something was truly transcendent it has absolutely no influence or relevance to life. So, therefore transcendence can be discounted. Fair enough.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
hotdog
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2011 6:49:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
yes I believe the process of reincarnation is real. Re-incarnate means - to make flesh again. It is generally only understood to refer to what happens when you die, but in fact this process is happening from the moment of conception until the moment of death. This process is more commonly known as metabolism, but it is the same thing as re-incarnation. The continuous remaking of flesh, the continuous renewal of our bodies.

Biologists accept that we are not a particular piece of matter. All the matter in your body is different to the matter it was composed of 7 years ago. Nothing of your baby or child body remains. Although the matter in our bodies is constantly changing and transforming (metabolism) our sense of self, our consciousness remains constant.

If throughout our entire lives, our bodies are constantly being made flesh again - or making themselves anew, it is only logical to assume that the process could continue after death.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 2:58:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There are thousands of documented cases that show the accuracy of children who claim to remember their past life. Enough evidence to make a believer out of anyone who is open to the possibility of such things. If you are not, then why ask for evidence or proof? If you are not open to the possibility, then there isn't any proof that can be shown which will change your mind. It really comes down to what you desire to believe and how much evidence there is to support your desire. There is evidence to support reincarnation, but that does not mean that such evidence is automatically valid to everyone. It is a choice... A choice of how much or what kind of convincing evidence you would need in order to feel something is true.

For me, it wasn't to hard to convince. I already desired that life was more than just a mechanical series of chemical processes. I have found much more evidence that makes sense to me in support of my desire, than against it. But it all starts with the original desire. Even doctors who were skeptics have witched their chosen perception and now believe. This was due to their own experiences with patients and other doctor's patients.

Link:Skeptics turned believers.
http://www.netplaces.com...

Stevenson is probably the best respected and most credible believer on the subject. Even skeptics agree that his data the best proof to support reincarnation as being a fact. He has over 3000 cases documented on the subject. Here is a link if you would like to learn more about Dr. Stevenson and his research.

Link: Dr. Stevenson.
http://reluctant-messenger.com...
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:13:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm surprised that this topic isn't getting more attention. There are thousands of documented cases in support of reincarnation, yet nobody wants to say much about it?

There is plenty of evidence that cannot be explained. These children come into the world knowing about their last life down to the intimate details, while still even retaining the behavior and emotions from the past life.

Unless you have another explanation, you have to consider reincarnation a possibility.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:39:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Still don't find any of it convincing.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:50:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 2:58:44 PM, Tiel wrote:
There are thousands of documented cases that show the accuracy of children who claim to remember their past life. Enough evidence to make a believer out of anyone who is open to the possibility of such things. If you are not, then why ask for evidence or proof? If you are not open to the possibility, then there isn't any proof that can be shown which will change your mind. It really comes down to what you desire to believe and how much evidence there is to support your desire. There is evidence to support reincarnation, but that does not mean that such evidence is automatically valid to everyone. It is a choice... A choice of how much or what kind of convincing evidence you would need in order to feel something is true.

For me, it wasn't to hard to convince. I already desired that life was more than just a mechanical series of chemical processes. I have found much more evidence that makes sense to me in support of my desire, than against it. But it all starts with the original desire. Even doctors who were skeptics have witched their chosen perception and now believe. This was due to their own experiences with patients and other doctor's patients.

Link:Skeptics turned believers.
http://www.netplaces.com...

Stevenson is probably the best respected and most credible believer on the subject. Even skeptics agree that his data the best proof to support reincarnation as being a fact. He has over 3000 cases documented on the subject. Here is a link if you would like to learn more about Dr. Stevenson and his research.

Link: Dr. Stevenson.
http://reluctant-messenger.com...

So you did not consider the possible flaws in his methology and research?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 4:43:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 3:39:24 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Still don't find any of it convincing.

Ok. Fair enough. Then give a more logical reason for the documented evidence in the cases. Explain the accurate knowledge and behavior of these children, as it pertains to the claim by these children of being that specific person from another life. All the knowledge and behavior of the children aligns accurately with the claims.

If you don't find it convincing, then you must have a better explanation for the accuracy of the knowledge and behavior.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 4:50:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm not going to attempt to refute stories that I'm not even sure aren't fabricated.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:30:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Link: Dr. Stevenson.
http://reluctant-messenger.com...

So you did not consider the possible flaws in his methology and research?

Possible flaws? You are going to have to elaborate.

The claims made by the children were highly accurate an average and unquestionably accurate on a number of cases. Even a handful f highly accurate or unquestionably accurate cases would be enough to convince most rational people of the possibility of reincarnation. Thousands of documented cases of enough accurate supporting evidence are enough to convince even a skeptical mind. Though one would have to actually read the documented cases in order to absorb the evidence and take it into consideration.

The accuracy of some of the claims can't be denied or explained by current mainstream science. Any respected scientist can tell you that. Stevenson's methods were all done according to the valid scientific methods and that is the very reason why he was respected y the scientific community even after he disclosed his research.

Also, Stevenson is not the only person to have a multitude of documented evidence in support of reincarnation. I'll give you some documented case links to look at. 2 by others. 2 by Stevenson. There are plenty other documented cases, but these were easy to find and post for you.

http://www.fox8.com...

http://www.iisis.net...

http://www.iisis.net...

http://www.iisis.net...

http://www.iisis.net...

Commentary of skeptics against Stevenson:

- Work on past-life experiences also attracted the attention of Carl Sagan and Arthur C. Clarke who, while intrigued, felt it fell well short of providing proof of reincarnation, which they both viewed as unlikely. In his 1996 book The Demon-Haunted World, Sagan stated of past-life experiences that it was one of three ESP claims warranting further study (along with the ability of people to affect random number generators, and receive thoughts or images 'projected' at them whilst under mild sensory deprivation), stating:

"I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true. The last three have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course I could be wrong."

Clarke observed that Stevenson had produced a number of studies that were "hard to explain" conventionally, but noted:

"the problem with reincarnation is that it's hard to imagine what the storage medium for past lives would be. Not to mention the input-output device. I hesitate to rule it out completely, but I'd need pretty definite proof."

Skeptic Sam Harris said of Stevenson "either he is a victim of truly elaborate fraud, or something interesting is going on".
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:32:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 4:50:06 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I'm not going to attempt to refute stories that I'm not even sure aren't fabricated.

Fabricated?

They are actual documented cases Cosmic. Even the mainstream scientific community admits that much. Look it up.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:52:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:32:41 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:50:06 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I'm not going to attempt to refute stories that I'm not even sure aren't fabricated.

Fabricated?

They are actual documented cases Cosmic. Even the mainstream scientific community admits that much. Look it up.

That doesn't mean anything to me. I still find it very hard to believe. That doesn't rule out fabrication or hyperbole.

It would take a lot to convince me of something like this, because as far as I know, that isn't how things work.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 6:40:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:52:22 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:32:41 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:50:06 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I'm not going to attempt to refute stories that I'm not even sure aren't fabricated.

Fabricated?

They are actual documented cases Cosmic. Even the mainstream scientific community admits that much. Look it up.

That doesn't mean anything to me. I still find it very hard to believe. That doesn't rule out fabrication or hyperbole.

It would take a lot to convince me of something like this, because as far as I know, that isn't how things work.

As far as you know? What kind of bis is that for continually learning more in an effort to learn the truth of actuality? You would be better off looking into it more and finding specifics points that you may have a problem with. IF you choose to refuse it just based on your current limited understanding of things, than you will never get any farther than where you are already at. All the documented evidence speaks for itself, unless you are going to question all scientifically documented evidence in totality. If you re, than your perspective of reality is nothing more than a fabrication of your own mind. You must ask yourself who is the one fabricating things here. If you have a better explanation for the accuracy found in the cases, then let's hear it. IF you are just refuting it just because you want to, that is a weak case. A weak case indeed.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 6:55:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 6:40:49 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:52:22 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:32:41 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:50:06 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I'm not going to attempt to refute stories that I'm not even sure aren't fabricated.

Fabricated?

They are actual documented cases Cosmic. Even the mainstream scientific community admits that much. Look it up.

That doesn't mean anything to me. I still find it very hard to believe. That doesn't rule out fabrication or hyperbole.

It would take a lot to convince me of something like this, because as far as I know, that isn't how things work.

As far as you know? What kind of bis is that for continually learning more in an effort to learn the truth of actuality? You would be better off looking into it more and finding specifics points that you may have a problem with. IF you choose to refuse it just based on your current limited understanding of things, than you will never get any farther than where you are already at. All the documented evidence speaks for itself, unless you are going to question all scientifically documented evidence in totality. If you re, than your perspective of reality is nothing more than a fabrication of your own mind. You must ask yourself who is the one fabricating things here. If you have a better explanation for the accuracy found in the cases, then let's hear it. IF you are just refuting it just because you want to, that is a weak case. A weak case indeed.

Let me rephrase that to make it easier to understand.

Based on what I know about how the world works, and how things are, reincarnation is not very likely at all. There isn't any scientific basis for it, whether you believe there is or not.

I'm not making a positive claim here. I'm not saying, "reincarnation is false". I'm saying I'm not convinced of the type of reincarnation that you are speaking of. Based on what I know, it sounds like bullsh!t.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 7:11:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 6:55:19 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 9/7/2011 6:40:49 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:52:22 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:32:41 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:50:06 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I'm not going to attempt to refute stories that I'm not even sure aren't fabricated.

Fabricated?

They are actual documented cases Cosmic. Even the mainstream scientific community admits that much. Look it up.

That doesn't mean anything to me. I still find it very hard to believe. That doesn't rule out fabrication or hyperbole.

It would take a lot to convince me of something like this, because as far as I know, that isn't how things work.

As far as you know? What kind of bis is that for continually learning more in an effort to learn the truth of actuality? You would be better off looking into it more and finding specifics points that you may have a problem with. IF you choose to refuse it just based on your current limited understanding of things, than you will never get any farther than where you are already at. All the documented evidence speaks for itself, unless you are going to question all scientifically documented evidence in totality. If you re, than your perspective of reality is nothing more than a fabrication of your own mind. You must ask yourself who is the one fabricating things here. If you have a better explanation for the accuracy found in the cases, then let's hear it. IF you are just refuting it just because you want to, that is a weak case. A weak case indeed.

Let me rephrase that to make it easier to understand.

Based on what I know about how the world works, and how things are, reincarnation is not very likely at all. There isn't any scientific basis for it, whether you believe there is or not.

I'm not making a positive claim here. I'm not saying, "reincarnation is false". I'm saying I'm not convinced of the type of reincarnation that you are speaking of. Based on what I know, it sounds like bullsh!t.

"Based on what I know....."

Ok, it's still a very weak argument.

All your words show is that you don't know that much about reincarnation. Your knowledge is obviously limited on the subject. You don't know enough to make an intelligent argument for or against it. You just say that "based on what I know...it's bullsh!t".

You either have to have a logical reason for refuting the evidence as a fabrication, or you must have an alternate explanation for the accuracy found within the scientific case studies.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."