Author Topic: Why won't God heal amputees? Because he can make you win at life without it.  (Read 17226 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
acturbo

You say you would like to know more about Dark Matter. Well in the New Scientist Magazine, 4th july 2013 was published the following which illuminates quite a bit about dark matter.

Quote
THE skeleton of dark matter that undergirds the cosmic web of matter in the universe has been clearly detected for first time.

We know that matter in the cosmos forms a web, with galaxies and clusters linked by filaments across mostly empty space. Filaments are made of normal matter and dark matter - the unseen stuff that makes up about 85 per cent of the universe's mass. Recent observations have seen the normal matter in such filaments.

Now Jörg Dietrich at the University Observatory in Munich, Germany, and his team have detected the dark matter component in a filament in a supercluster about 2.7 billion light years from us, called Abell 222/223.

The massive filament's gravity focuses the light travelling towards Earth from more distant background galaxies. The team used this light to calculate the filament's mass and shape. X-rays from the hot gas of normal matter in the vicinity showed that this matter lined up with the filament but made up only about 10 per cent of its mass. The rest must be dark matter (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature11224). This shows that the filament is "part of a network of dark matter that connects galaxy clusters throughout the universe", says Dietrich.

As for the 'electric sun idea' did you get round to explaining how the heavier elements are formed is stars like the sun derive their power from electricity and not from nuclear fusion? I would be most interested to hear that. I know a retired solar scientist and if I see him I'll ask him about the idea but I think he might laugh.

Well then you should direct your question to your friend and ask him to review the video i posted. Let him think on it, then on his behalf, post back his expert view on things. I think that would be more meaningful than anything any one of us could say about this topic.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11200
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Thanks for that, i almost missed your other wrong comment:

"The energetic particles produced at the Sun in flares seldom reach the Earth."

Seldom, huh? Wrong again.
<snip>

Hey, that's from your link. Not my words, but yours (implicitly).
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
Thanks for that, i almost missed your other wrong comment:

"The energetic particles produced at the Sun in flares seldom reach the Earth."

Seldom, huh? Wrong again.
<snip>

Hey, that's from your link. Not my words, but yours (implicitly).

Nice try, no.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11200
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Nice try, no.

Read the link if you don't believe me. Don't make me get an admin to delete the +1 I gave you.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
Nice try, no.

Read the link if you don't believe me. Don't make me get an admin to delete the +1 I gave you.

My point is, I never said this:
"The energetic particles produced at the Sun in flares seldom reach the Earth"

It seemed you were suggesting i did, that's all. I get it now, it was in the original article.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 04:42:03 PM by acturbo »

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11200
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
My point is, I never said this:
"The energetic particles produced at the Sun in flares seldom reach the Earth"

It seemed you were suggesting i did, that's all.

You posted a link intended on proving me wrong. I quoted it to show you how it actually supported my side. You then ignored that link and tried pushing a new one on to me. This time I didn't (and probably won't) bother to read it, since apparently you don't read them yourself.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
My point is, I never said this:
"The energetic particles produced at the Sun in flares seldom reach the Earth"

It seemed you were suggesting i did, that's all.

You posted a link intended on proving me wrong. I quoted it to show you how it actually supported my side. You then ignored that link and tried pushing a new one on to me. This time I didn't (and probably won't) bother to read it, since apparently you don't read them yourself.

Ah yes, I got it now ... sorry, it's hard to use links efficiently since you may want to quote some of hat they say, but not agree with other things. That's what happened.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
... But in your mad dash to prove me wrong at all costs ...

Your posts would be easier to take seriously if you made fewer claims about what others are thinking.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2343
  • Darwins +437/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Unfortunately, the line of argument you guys are dragging me down into is that if i can't scientifically prove reincarnation, then it must be "bunk". I suggest that just because we don't fully understand, or more specifically, can't "absolutely, positively" prove reincarnation, does not mean it doesn't exist. There's lots of room for discussion about this topic, but holding my comments to a rigid must-have-proof-only standard is not helping us discuss it.
What are the restrictions you have on discussing this topic?  Are there any at all?

Is there any standard that we should your comments to?  That you should hold my comments to?

Quote
I simply pointed out there is lots we don't understand about the universe, including dark matter, which i think is relevant seeing as it shows that scientists don't have it all figured out.
Again...I'm rather certain that you'll find zero people here that would claim that scientists do have it all figured out.  Really, I'm rather certain that everyone on this forum will agree with the statement "we do not know everything" or "we do not have everything figured out."

So no...it's not relevant.

Seriously - is there anyone participating in this thread that disagrees with the statement "the scientific community does not know everything?"
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
... But in your mad dash to prove me wrong at all costs ...

Your posts would be easier to take seriously if you made fewer claims about what others are thinking.

hmm, maybe your high-horse was in the stable while others were trying to teach me about "1+1=2".

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
  • Darwins +49/-21
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
... But in your mad dash to prove me wrong at all costs ...

Your posts would be easier to take seriously if you made fewer claims about what others are thinking.

hmm, maybe your high-horse was in the stable while others were trying to teach me about "1+1=2".


Yeah . . . maybe.


joining this thread late (my first post) ...

Welcome to our forum.


However, consider for a moment that this life is just one of many. That is, reincarnation.

That's a pretty flipping big IF, don't you think?  I'd say you need to connect the dots, because you've not gotten from here to there yet.

i don't think my IF is any bigger than ignoring the various evidence suggesting that reincarnation is real. Short of having a firsthand experience and being able to remember it, i suspect that my comments may always fall short for anyone not interested in exploring the concept. And this is fine. I can only provide my perspective on this topic.
Bold is mine.

Keep this in mind:

Every single field of science is crowded with capable researchers. From this time forward, there will never be a collection of new solid evidence that gets ignored by all of the top scientists.

Never.

Actual evidence for reincarnation? Scientists jump for joy and do cartwheels after making a discovery of not even a sliver of the importance of such a discovery.

Please. Think. About. This. Before. Continuing.

Scientists tend to be experts in the material world.

The greatest scientists of our modern world tend to be experts in "If it's a good argument, I will recognize that it's a good argument." This renders your definition of "non-material" to "Nonsense that every great scientist recognizes as nonsense".

A good logical proposal is a good logical proposal.


Great scientist: "1 + 1 = 2".

You: "I don't like '1 + 1 = 2'. Since great scientists are calculating their conclusions within the only world we know, I think I will propose a different world where 'anything goes' and call their 'real world' 'The Material World'."





You're a joke.


Once again, welcome to the forum.  ;)


Or . . . maybe reincarnation that gradually leads to more personal education and satisfaction is the most viable explanation of our circumstance, especially since overwhelming evidence points directly to this particular brand of reincarnation and all of its baggage.
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
^^ Messiest and most confusing post of the year contender.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
^^ The 7-tier quote nest is a bit much.

... But in your mad dash to prove me wrong at all costs ...

Your posts would be easier to take seriously if you made fewer claims about what others are thinking.

hmm, maybe your high-horse was in the stable while others were trying to teach me about "1+1=2".

That has no bearing on what I said.  And they weren't actually trying to teach you about "1+1=2".
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
^^ The 7-tier quote nest is a bit much.

... But in your mad dash to prove me wrong at all costs ...

Your posts would be easier to take seriously if you made fewer claims about what others are thinking.

hmm, maybe your high-horse was in the stable while others were trying to teach me about "1+1=2".

That has no bearing on what I said.  And they weren't actually trying to teach you about "1+1=2".

Fair enough, now that that's been cleared up, hopefully we can get back to a more interesting line of discussion.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Hard to manage, when anyone you disagree with is automatically "in a mad dash to prove you wrong at all costs".
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6213
  • Darwins +411/-5
  • Gender: Male
Unfortunately, the line of argument you guys are dragging me down into is that if i can't scientifically prove reincarnation, then it must be "bunk". I suggest that just because we don't fully understand, or more specifically, can't "absolutely, positively" prove reincarnation, does not mean it doesn't exist. There's lots of room for discussion about this topic, but holding my comments to a rigid must-have-proof-only standard is not helping us discuss it.

Good point.

Thing is reincarnation is NOT actually bunk.  What is ACTUALLY the case is that there are, in fact, just twelve real consciousnesses in existence.  These consciousnesses bounce back and forth through time and inhabit (literally) billions of bodies, in some cases hundreds of millions at a time.  Chances are high that you and I are different aspects of the same consciousness, though of course we won't know it in here.  In the ethereal world above, the twelve consciousnesses sit in ring, simultaneously experiencing all that is happening, and knowing nothing and everything about all the existences they have had/are yet to have (time is not a valid construct in the ethereal).

Shall we discuss this?  I believe it fits all the facts currently (and erroneously) placed under the "reincarnation" umbrella that foolishly insists on billions of souls repeating in a blind and temporally linear fashion.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2799
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
Unfortunately, the line of argument you guys are dragging me down into is that if i can't scientifically prove reincarnation, then it must be "bunk". I suggest that just because we don't fully understand, or more specifically, can't "absolutely, positively" prove reincarnation, does not mean it doesn't exist. There's lots of room for discussion about this topic, but holding my comments to a rigid must-have-proof-only standard is not helping us discuss it.

Certainly this is something that might happen in the sense that is cannot be proven to be false. On the other hand, there is a degree of difficulty in explaining how it might work to the extent that we might say it is so unlikely as not to warrant much time.

The biggest difficulty about reincarnation is the question of the mind of the person. Now if we have no memory of past lives but we are supposed to be living out many lives to learn, then, presumably, there is going to have to be a memory bank storing our memories from each of our lives. Now in life, our memories are stored in a pattern of neurons with control centres recovering the memories on demand. However they are no saved like video clips and various bits of  memory have to be assembled by the brain and it has a tendency to fill in bits when it 'plays back'  memory. It is for this reason that memory in quite unreliable when it comes to remembering events that have to be recounted in court. Anyway, all this stuff would have to be transferred at death to some storage medium for later use.

So, would you care to suggest how this might happen because I think this is the biggest hurdle to claiming that reincarnation is real.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you

Unfortunately, the line of argument you guys are dragging me down into is that if i can't scientifically prove reincarnation, then it must be "bunk". I suggest that just because we don't fully understand, or more specifically, can't "absolutely, positively" prove reincarnation, does not mean it doesn't exist. There's lots of room for discussion about this topic, but holding my comments to a rigid must-have-proof-only standard is not helping us discuss it. I simply pointed out there is lots we don't understand about the universe, including dark matter, which i think is relevant seeing as it shows that scientists don't have it all figured out.


"Could be" is not a good argument for "is." I am saying, based on evidence, my belief is that reincarnation is extremely extremely likely to be bunk. Not "must be" but "is." If evidence, unambiguous evidence, were to present itself that reincarnation wasn't just another in  the vast cloud of baseless supernatural claims, I would change my mind.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
Unfortunately, the line of argument you guys are dragging me down into is that if i can't scientifically prove reincarnation, then it must be "bunk". I suggest that just because we don't fully understand, or more specifically, can't "absolutely, positively" prove reincarnation, does not mean it doesn't exist. There's lots of room for discussion about this topic, but holding my comments to a rigid must-have-proof-only standard is not helping us discuss it.

Good point.

Thing is reincarnation is NOT actually bunk.  What is ACTUALLY the case is that there are, in fact, just twelve real consciousnesses in existence.  These consciousnesses bounce back and forth through time and inhabit (literally) billions of bodies, in some cases hundreds of millions at a time.  Chances are high that you and I are different aspects of the same consciousness, though of course we won't know it in here.  In the ethereal world above, the twelve consciousnesses sit in ring, simultaneously experiencing all that is happening, and knowing nothing and everything about all the existences they have had/are yet to have (time is not a valid construct in the ethereal).

Shall we discuss this?  I believe it fits all the facts currently (and erroneously) placed under the "reincarnation" umbrella that foolishly insists on billions of souls repeating in a blind and temporally linear fashion.

It's the first i've heard about twelve consciousnesses -- i'll look into this. The only time i've heard about something similar is in Edgar Cayce's work where he explains cosmology. I've watched some decent Cayce youtube videos of this but i don't know enough to comment.

My take is that there is only 1 consciousness, where everything comes from. As it relates to us as individuals, my understanding is that this single consciousness "separates a tiny piece from itself" (crude explanation, but that's the gist), which we could refer to as an individual "soul" to manifest into countless bodies across the universe to experience life over many billions of years. You and i are that piece, and we are basically taking a ride in the human body we currently have. We go through a lifetime experience, make mistakes, learn, grow or possibly regress. We repeat this over millions/billions of years with the goal of gaining wisdom and perfecting ourselves and eventually rejoin that single consciousness to contribute our experiences to its growth.

I post this loose summary to provide a general idea of what i think is going on. As for evidence, well that's part of the challenge -- one way or the other. I'm not here to argue this topic from a scientific perspective because i'm not a scientist, i can only offer what i've discovered about this topic and share what i've found. I suppose i prefer a philosophical approach to this topic.

If it's worth anything, i grew up Roman Catholic but my family and i were not church goers, other than once a year for Christmas. When i was still young, i determined that church was just a business and that it was all about money and control. The bible seemed like a giant fairytale to me. I became agnostic, even considered myself atheist for a while but that never felt quite right either, so i settled back into agnosticism ("not knowing what happens") for ~20 years. In my late 30's i was introduced to the concept of reincarnation, which i found interesting, and started researching it as a hobby for the next number of  years. Along the way, i discovered that the church has indeed deliberately hidden and distorted important information about reincarnation, which has helped fuel my interest to keep researching this topic.

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2799
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
OK, acturbo, let's go with what you say or a moment. I have a few things to ask.

1. The only consciousness we know of is that formed by brains that are working in human beings. On the assumption that this Consciousness you mention in neither a human body nor indeed material, how can you know it as a Consciousness or indeed know it exists at all?

2. How do we know that 'bits break off' to form humans? Whereas it sounds fine I am more interested in the way you claim to know this is the case.

3. How can you know that people are reincarnated? Although, again, it sounds fine, but I have already posed the question of memory and how it might work between lives and I just don't see how it might work.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6951
  • Darwins +941/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Breath being held. &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2799
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
Breath being held. &)

Don't, don't - you'll die!
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13032
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Breath being held. &)

Don't, don't - you'll die!

Nah...she'll get dizzy first, and then breathe again.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
I suppose i prefer a philosophical approach to this topic.

I don't think you mean this.  I think you misunderstand what a philosophical approach is.  Philosophy is rigorous.  It makes arguments with facts and logic.  It is highly disciplined. 

What you are talking about is an informal discussion, where any party gets to say whatever they want and the other party is expected to furrow their brows, nod and say, "wow, man, that is deep", without really challenging it.  This is the kind of thing teenagers do as they pass around a water bong.  That is not to speak of it in derogatory terms.  That is a fine thing to do, if you like that sort of thing, as I once did (without the bong). 

Most of us here have outgrown that, though.  As such, the expectations on this forum are more...stringent.  We have a higher standard than stoned teens.  This is why you are having such a difficult time here.  It is not becuase we are a bunch of assholes.  Well, not mainly because of that, anyway. 

It is because you do not yet understand the expectations here.  We have a forum called The Shelter.  It is more for the kind of discussion I perceive you want.  I will give you access.

I hope this helps.

The bible seemed like a giant fairytale to me.

This is good.  Why does reincarnation not seem like a giant faerietale as well?

Much of what you describe sounds exactly like hinduism.  Do you consider yourself to be a hindu?

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
OK, acturbo, let's go with what you say or a moment. I have a few things to ask.

1. The only consciousness we know of is that formed by brains that are working in human beings. On the assumption that this Consciousness you mention in neither a human body nor indeed material, how can you know it as a Consciousness or indeed know it exists at all?

2. How do we know that 'bits break off' to form humans? Whereas it sounds fine I am more interested in the way you claim to know this is the case.

3. How can you know that people are reincarnated? Although, again, it sounds fine, but I have already posed the question of memory and how it might work between lives and I just don't see how it might work.

great questions ...

1. IMO, the brain does not create consciousness because i don't think it probable that a brain can create, or give birth to, something smarter than itself.
I'm not saying it's not possible, i just personally find it more logical to accept that our mind or consciousness comes from a much more sophisticated "thing" -- from outside our bodies. Also, i consider the countless people that are born with particular gifts, for example, musicions (without ever having learned to read a note of muic), artists, mathematicians that understand numbers and formulas without prior instruction. etc. to be a sign that maybe these people have done this before. When taken together, it leads me to accept that it comes from outside our body vs. from our body -- again, my opinion.

2. Just a minor correction, i suggest that the "bits break off" to join the body, not physically form the body. That is, we have a physical body (how it came to be is another discussion) and at some point during the early term of the pregnancy, when the embryo is physically capable of some set of basic functions, the soul/consciousness arrives. I realize that this may sound nuts, which is fine, but i offer this explanation based on various sources that all point to the same general process. At birth, the physical body will have a soul/consciousness.  The soul/consciousness itself could be a young soul, or old soul or somewhere in between.

3. How do we know people are reincarnated ... i can't answer that with a single "here is how we know" answer, but i can try to share some indicators that helped me. NDE cases provide an interesting insight to what they experienced at their death. If you accept some of the more powerful cases, then this gets us half way there, that is, NDE cases help show that we (soul/consciousness/mind ... whatever) seems to have vivid experiences after being clinically dead. NDE doesn't explain the process of coming back though. For that, i looked into Past Life Regression cases. I'm sure you guys have seem a few youtube videos about kids claiming former memories etc. That's fine -- you can take it or leave it. However, some doctors have delved into this topic through hypnosis. Dr. Michael Newton performed some 6,000 past life regressions and documented his findings. That body of work, for me personally, was enough to make me take reincarnation seriously.

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
I suppose i prefer a philosophical approach to this topic.

I don't think you mean this.  I think you misunderstand what a philosophical approach is.  Philosophy is rigorous.  It makes arguments with facts and logic.  It is highly disciplined. 

What you are talking about is an informal discussion, where any party gets to say whatever they want and the other party is expected to furrow their brows, nod and say, "wow, man, that is deep", without really challenging it.  This is the kind of thing teenagers do as they pass around a water bong.  That is not to speak of it in derogatory terms.  That is a fine thing to do, if you like that sort of thing, as I once did (without the bong). 

Most of us here have outgrown that, though.  As such, the expectations on this forum are more...stringent.  We have a higher standard than stoned teens.  This is why you are having such a difficult time here.  It is not becuase we are a bunch of assholes.  Well, not mainly because of that, anyway. 

It is because you do not yet understand the expectations here.  We have a forum called The Shelter.  It is more for the kind of discussion I perceive you want.  I will give you access.

I hope this helps.

The bible seemed like a giant fairytale to me.

This is good.  Why does reincarnation not seem like a giant faerietale as well?

Much of what you describe sounds exactly like hinduism.  Do you consider yourself to be a hindu?

fair enough ... we'll call it "informal discussion" .

Reincarnation was not easy for me to digest, it sounded bizarre when i had my first real discussion about it --- more like, i was doing the listening and asking all the questions. It took lots of googling. The various past life regression research from modern medical doctors helped eliminate the "this is nuts" factor, so that helped me focus on "how probable is this?".

I think you're right, Hinduism is probably the closest religion that matches my beliefs about reincarnation, but i don't know much about Hinduism's religious details beyond that. I also think Buddhism's take on reincarnation matches my beliefs too, but again, i don't know much about the details of Buddhism beyond that. I don't subscribe to any religion ... i pick and choose facts from anywhere, if they resonate with me. 

And yes, add me to the Shelter if it makes sense, thanks.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 06:48:58 PM by acturbo »

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6951
  • Darwins +941/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
The only part of reincarnation that makes any sense to me is that it accounts for the fact that life is so very unfair.

A baby girl is born to impoverished parents in Calcutta, learns to beg for food by age two, is abandoned and dies of intestinal parasites at age three. Another baby is born to middle class parents in a Paris suburb, has good health care, never misses a meal, goes to college, gets married, has a great life and lives to be a 95 year old happy grandma.

What accounts for that huge disparity in quality of life? What is the point of so many people living lives of misery on the one hand and others living in luxury and plenty?

With no other apparent reason behind accident of birth, reincarnation fits the bill. You suffer or prosper in this life to balance out what happened in a previous life. Slam that case closed.

One problem, a teeny weeny problem. There is not a shred of real evidence that any of this happens:

a)people have a separate soul or consciousness outside the brain; b) this soul can "live" on somewhere after the person dies; c)this [dead person's] soul can go into other people; d) these souls can "remember" or "learn" independent of the brain; e) souls "live" somewhere without a human body; etc. etc.

Just saying something is the case does not make it true. Even if it makes sense in some ways, and even if we wish it was true, no controlled study has shown any of this to be true. Articles on the internet can produce some notoriously bad ideas about science. Anyone can write up a bunch of stuff about some guy who thinks people can remember past lives.

But has it been peer reviewed? Has it been replicated by different researchers? Has any soul been detected after death by any instrument? Everything that has passed scientific muster shows that the brain dies and that is it. No soul survives the end of brain function.

You have to demonstrate that something really happens if people are supposed to believe it. Pics (scientific evidence) or it didn't happen. Show us a "soul" existing outside of a human body. Otherwise, it is only one more nutty idea that people have come up with.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
The only part of reincarnation that makes any sense to me is that it accounts for the fact that life is so very unfair.

A baby girl is born to impoverished parents in Calcutta, learns to beg for food by age two, is abandoned and dies of intestinal parasites at age three. Another baby is born to middle class parents in a Paris suburb, has good health care, never misses a meal, goes to college, gets married, has a great life and lives to be a 95 year old happy grandma.

What accounts for that huge disparity in quality of life? What is the point of so many people living lives of misery on the one hand and others living in luxury and plenty?

With no other apparent reason behind accident of birth, reincarnation fits the bill. You suffer or prosper in this life to balance out what happened in a previous life. Slam that case closed.

One problem, a teeny weeny problem. There is not a shred of real evidence that any of this happens:

a)people have a separate soul or consciousness outside the brain; b) this soul can "live" on somewhere after the person dies; c)this [dead person's] soul can go into other people; d) these souls can "remember" or "learn" independent of the brain; e) souls "live" somewhere without a human body; etc. etc.

Just saying something is the case does not make it true. Even if it makes sense in some ways, and even if we wish it was true, no controlled study has shown any of this to be true. Articles on the internet can produce some notoriously bad ideas about science. Anyone can write up a bunch of stuff about some guy who thinks people can remember past lives.

But has it been peer reviewed? Has it been replicated by different researchers? Has any soul been detected after death by any instrument? Everything that has passed scientific muster shows that the brain dies and that is it. No soul survives the end of brain function.

You have to demonstrate that something really happens if people are supposed to believe it. Pics (scientific evidence) or it didn't happen. Show us a "soul" existing outside of a human body. Otherwise, it is only one more nutty idea that people have come up with.

I agree with the first part of your post -- it certainly helps explain disparities, misfortunes, etc. and it helps give a real purpose to life.

However, as for claiming there is "not a shred of real evidence", well, that's not accurate at all. There is in fact evidence, but that evidence requires some interpretation and requires a willingness to believe witness testimony, specifically in the case of Past Life Regression analysis and NDE interviews. If you are unwilling to accept that, then i suspect that you'll always find this topic inadequate.

If i can turn the table around for a moment, ask yourself if you can provide the same level of evidence for your belief system as you're demanding from this one. I personally don't need this, i'm just pushing you to think to think about it.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 11:34:01 PM by acturbo »

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Retired Residential Tulpamancer.
One issue, mate.

Witness testimony means SQUAT.

If you say witness testimony is allowed for non-natural things, you end up with every single supernatural belief being true, which is obviously not the case.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.