Paul Dirac's quote on religion...

[gnostic]

I think Dirac probably misunderstood what religion does for many people. Religion provides people with a basis for morality, meaning, and hope. It's discomforting to think that there's nothing beyond the grave for us, that there is no meaning to this life beyond what we choose, and that there's no compensation for the injustices that we suffer. Religion provides hope and meaning for people, even if such hope is misplaced.

The problems with religions are that we making assumption is what lie beyond this reality.

Why do we still believe in ancient belief that are filled with mythological beings, symbols and superstitions? Why do we need to live forever?

To me, religion is a charade and it is giving false hope about the afterlife.

Do we need to have crutches of religion or the supposed supreme being in order to find or have morality?

 

[Tellurian]

See page 3 of this debate: Respond to my post if you have the intellectual honesty you claim to have.

Which is the more compelling case: Dark Matter which has never been found, detected, or even had a plausible location suggested OR an ET, which has never been found, detected, or even a plausible location suggested, visited earth in our past to hand down basic societal tenets?

Although Dark Matter cannot be "seen", we can, however, see the effects it has on light that passes through or near the dark matter, thus we know that there is something out there effecting the light. We also know something is out there due to the effect it has on the matter in our galaxy as our galaxy rotates around its center. As for an ET, what evidence do we have that one visited to "hand down basic societal tenets", and how would it have chosen who would be most likely to spread that information around the world?

"Can we provide people an alternative to religion that works?"

What is it about religion that needs to be retained? Rules and laws can replace "commandments". Meditation can replace prayers. Psychology and therapy can replace "spiritual guidance". Medical care can replace healings. Fictional tales and mythologies can replace biblical supernatural stories. Enjoying the one and only life you will ever have replaces suffering in life to supposedly receive false promises of rewards in a fictional afterlife.

If reality was created, then how can something which approximates "God" NOT be true? And before you respond, "Why should it have to be created?" I will point out that it doesn't have to be, merely that we have no evidence that it could not have been and therefore it remains a possibility that it was in fact created.

If you want to believe reality was created by some god, then how do you choose which god you want to believe in? Do you choose an Egyptian god, a Greek god, a Hindu god, a Jewish god, a Nordic god, a Deist god, or some other god? I see M-Theory and ekpyrotic membranes as being more believable than some human created, human like, supernatural being magically creating the universe with a simple abracadabra.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Although Dark Matter cannot be "seen", we can, however, see the effects it has on light that passes through or near the dark matter, thus we know that there is something out there effecting the light. We also know something is out there due to the effect it has on the matter in our galaxy as our galaxy rotates around its center. As for an ET, what evidence do we have that one visited to "hand down basic societal tenets", and how would it have chosen who would be most likely to spread that information around the world?


What is it about religion that needs to be retained? Rules and laws can replace "commandments". Meditation can replace prayers. Psychology and therapy can replace "spiritual guidance". Medical care can replace healings. Fictional tales and mythologies can replace biblical supernatural stories. Enjoying the one and only life you will ever have replaces suffering in life to supposedly receive false promises of rewards in a fictional afterlife.



If you want to believe reality was created by some god, then how do you choose which god you want to believe in? Do you choose an Egyptian god, a Greek god, a Hindu god, a Jewish god, a Nordic god, a Deist god, or some other god? I see M-Theory and ekpyrotic membranes as being more believable than some human created, human like, supernatural being magically creating the universe with a simple abracadabra.

No, we see what we presume is the effects on the rotation of galaxies. We have NOT observed dark matter's affect on light. In point of fact it would not be called dark matter if it had affected light in any way; dark matter is an observation not an explanation. There aren't any particles associated with dark matters, and if there were, then perhaps dark matter has an electromagnetic interaction that is the real and true explanation for red shift and not the warping of space. The point here is that without associating dark matter with anything observable or testable (and we have not observed anything that can possibly be dark matter) that you could just as well be saying that "dark elves" did it. Phlogiston was a similar "scientific" error from before times; "Why did something happen? Phlogiston did it." If your explanation doesn't carry an ancillary qualities that are testable or observational components that we can look for, then your "explanation" is really just a placeholder for ignorance.

The only thing we can actually detect at the cores of galaxies are super massive black holes, but even those are insufficient to explain dark matter. 22% of the universe is made up of dark matter. If there is over 5 times as much dark matter as stuff found on the periodic table and a smattering of exotic particles, then where is it, and why doesn't it interact with particles or light in any way described by physics today?

BBT is our best model, but when you start taking into account some of the problems: like quasars that don't show any evidence of time dilation (and time dilation is pretty solidly evidenced), then you are left with either Relativity being wrong (not likely and the only option which doesn't require BBT being drastically altered) or our methods of measuring distance being drastically wrong (which would require reworking the BB model entirely) or there is some effect out there which drastically alters the behavior of light and/or how light travels through space (again BBT gets reworked). So no, I will not be placing a high level of confidence in explanations based on dark matter or that require BBT to be complete in order to have any explanatory power.


Now compare that same relatively slight evidence to the level of evidence presented in Hindu religious texts. What is described there could be a primitive man's description of lasers (beams of light that scorch the earth) and nuclear weapons (giant bursts of light and balls of fire). Now how could a primitive man who had yet to invent a prism or lens deduce the existence of focused intense different colored light? What in their daily experience would give rise to a giant ball of fire that was not the sun? I'm perfectly willing to admit that the likelihood is very small, and that it is less likely than BBT being correct, but the differences in probability is small not large as you would have us believe.


Humans value certainty. Science and philosophy can't offer certainty. Just because YOU can do without religion does not mean that everyone else can; that is a grossly large error in attribution. Half of humanity can't even manage to abstract more than a single degree, and you want them to replace prayer with meditation/introspection (impossible; most people I know and work with would rather eat paint chips than meditate). Replace mythology with fictional tales? Doesn't address the human need for certainty. We elect our political leaders based on mythos (campaign promises are just that myths); if we can't replace mythos in our political system what makes you think it can be done with religion?


I didn't say "some god;" I said "God" as in a placeholder for that which transcends reality; consummate perfection; prime mover; first cause; transcendence; the absolute; etc. In this instance I, quite frankly, could not care less about whether or not the universe was created. Aliens could presumably do that; heck us from the future or a parallel universe version of humanity might well have started this universe. Whether or not the universe was created is IRRELEVANT. Side Note: Mythology is irrelevant here; why you thought a specific mythologized being was even being implied here is beyond me.

I am asking you to consider what if REALITY were created. Reality = the system upon which all forms, types, qualities, aspects, facets, etc of Existence (unqualified) are dependent. Without reality there is nothing. Now that we had better be clear on what the terms mean: how do you respond to the possibility that Reality was created?

We have precisely zero evidence about the nature of Reality. As such we cannot make any strong claims about it, and if you try an use parsimony you are left with two equally complex claims about the nature of reality (they both require infinite unknown evidence as the question asks for information of which we are completely ignorant). With that said I am perfectly willing to posit a self-contained, eternal, uncreated reality wherein things exist, so I am not biased towards a "God" (I actually believe that an uncreated reality is more likely, but I know I can't discount "God" either).

MTF

 

[Photonic]

No, we see what we presume is the effects on the rotation of galaxies. We have NOT observed dark matter's affect on light. In point of fact it would not be called dark matter if it had affected light in any way; dark matter is an observation not an explanation. There aren't any particles associated with dark matters, and if there were, then perhaps dark matter has an electromagnetic interaction that is the real and true explanation for red shift and not the warping of space. The point here is that without associating dark matter with anything observable or testable (and we have not observed anything that can possibly be dark matter) that you could just as well be saying that "dark elves" did it. Phlogiston was a similar "scientific" error from before times; "Why did something happen? Phlogiston did it." If your explanation doesn't carry an ancillary qualities that are testable or observational components that we can look for, then your "explanation" is really just a placeholder for ignorance.

The only thing we can actually detect at the cores of galaxies are super massive black holes, but even those are insufficient to explain dark matter. 22% of the universe is made up of dark matter. If there is over 5 times as much dark matter as stuff found on the periodic table and a smattering of exotic particles, then where is it, and why doesn't it interact with particles or light in any way described by physics today?

BBT is our best model, but when you start taking into account some of the problems: like quasars that don't show any evidence of time dilation (and time dilation is pretty solidly evidenced), then you are left with either Relativity being wrong (not likely and the only option which doesn't require BBT being drastically altered) or our methods of measuring distance being drastically wrong (which would require reworking the BB model entirely) or there is some effect out there which drastically alters the behavior of light and/or how light travels through space (again BBT gets reworked). So no, I will not be placing a high level of confidence in explanations based on dark matter or that require BBT to be complete in order to have any explanatory power.


Now compare that same relatively slight evidence to the level of evidence presented in Hindu religious texts. What is described there could be a primitive man's description of lasers (beams of light that scorch the earth) and nuclear weapons (giant bursts of light and balls of fire). Now how could a primitive man who had yet to invent a prism or lens deduce the existence of focused intense different colored light? What in their daily experience would give rise to a giant ball of fire that was not the sun? I'm perfectly willing to admit that the likelihood is very small, and that it is less likely than BBT being correct, but the differences in probability is small not large as you would have us believe.


Humans value certainty. Science and philosophy can't offer certainty. Just because YOU can do without religion does not mean that everyone else can; that is a grossly large error in attribution. Half of humanity can't even manage to abstract more than a single degree, and you want them to replace prayer with meditation/introspection (impossible; most people I know and work with would rather eat paint chips than meditate). Replace mythology with fictional tales? Doesn't address the human need for certainty. We elect our political leaders based on mythos (campaign promises are just that myths); if we can't replace mythos in our political system what makes you think it can be done with religion?


I didn't say "some god;" I said "God" as in a placeholder for that which transcends reality; consummate perfection; prime mover; first cause; transcendence; the absolute; etc. In this instance I, quite frankly, could not care less about whether or not the universe was created. Aliens could presumably do that; heck us from the future or a parallel universe version of humanity might well have started this universe. Whether or not the universe was created is IRRELEVANT. Side Note: Mythology is irrelevant here; why you thought a specific mythologized being was even being implied here is beyond me.

I am asking you to consider what if REALITY were created. Reality = the system upon which all forms, types, qualities, aspects, facets, etc of Existence (unqualified) are dependent. Without reality there is nothing. Now that we had better be clear on what the terms mean: how do you respond to the possibility that Reality was created?

We have precisely zero evidence about the nature of Reality. As such we cannot make any strong claims about it, and if you try an use parsimony you are left with two equally complex claims about the nature of reality (they both require infinite unknown evidence as the question asks for information of which we are completely ignorant). With that said I am perfectly willing to posit a self-contained, eternal, uncreated reality wherein things exist, so I am not biased towards a "God" (I actually believe that an uncreated reality is more likely, but I know I can't discount "God" either).

MTF

Not to mention anything that transcends perceived reality would, itself, constitute reality, would it not?

 

[bobhikes]

The idea of person gain entry into heaven as a reward is foreign.

Enoch, Moses, Elijah and possibly Abraham may have gain entry into heaven, but they are exceptions, but it is not the rule in Judaism.

There are some references that everyone who die, will go to Sheol. Sheol should not be confused with heaven, or not even with hell.

Christians have always mistaken Sheol to be hell, hell in the Christian sense. Sheol was not a place of punishment and torment, but a place where all souls go to. A more accurate description of the Sheol would be the Netherworld.

One Jew here (don't remember who or which topic it was) also tried to explain to me the concept that the soul, or the breath of God, that gave life to the body, will depart and return to God, when a person die. Actually, he stated all souls will return to God. However, there is no judgement, no reward and no punishment. The soul also have no self or identity of a person that the soul had once resided in. The soul just simply get reabsorbed into God, and everything about you (and your mortal life, your personality) will cease to exist. Therefore, there is no afterlife.

This fascinating concept may sounds strange to any Christian or Muslim or to anyone who believe in the afterlife, it actually make far more sense than this whole judgement and afterlife that the (Christian) Bible and Qur'an mention.

Its sounds to me as eternal life and reward. Fate equals reward for me. Reincarnation = eternal life. Enlightenment = reward and in some cultures eternal life. In eternal life you never exist as you do in this life but your spirit in some form goes on forever (ie eternal life). If being good produces any product it is a reward system(even if it just balances fate).

Even in christian religion it does not say your life will be as it was on earth. It actually implies it will be quite different. It only says you will be happy with God forever. Could very much be what happens in the Jewish religion. If your soul was absorbed by god you would be happy with god forever. God could very well be the new eden.

 

[gnostic]

Its sounds to me as eternal life and reward. Fate equals reward for me. Reincarnation = eternal life. Enlightenment = reward and in some cultures eternal life. In eternal life you never exist as you do in this life but your spirit in some form goes on forever (ie eternal life). If being good produces any product it is a reward system(even if it just balances fate).

Even in christian religion it does not say your life will be as it was on earth. It actually implies it will be quite different. It only says you will be happy with God forever. Could very much be what happens in the Jewish religion. If your soul was absorbed by god you would be happy with god forever. God could very well be the new eden.

That's the thing, once your soul return to God, you'd cease to exist.

You will not feel happiness, because you don't exist anymore and you won't have any feeling whatsoever, let alone happiness. Hence, you can't feel anything, like contentment, pride, love, hate, pain, sorrow, etc.

You won't have any memories of your life, again, because you won't exist.

You won't be able to do anything, so there won't be enjoyment of your reward. Your reward will be absolute oblivion.

 

[bobhikes]

That's the thing, once your soul return to God, you'd cease to exist.

You will not feel happiness, because you don't exist anymore and you won't have any feeling whatsoever, let alone happiness. Hence, you can't feel anything, like contentment, pride, love, hate, pain, sorrow, etc.

You won't have any memories of your life, again, because you won't exist.

You won't be able to do anything, so there won't be enjoyment of your reward. Your reward will be absolute oblivion.

For some just being part of god or the universe is reward enough. In some religions you are reborn in different live with no associations to your other lives other than your current fate, which is decided by how you lived your past life which you can not recall. It is still a reward for being good and still eternal life.

No religion says believe in us and your life will not be better and you will just die and be insect food. It is all a reward and eternal life system. The rewards and eternal life systems are as different as the people that inhabit the earth.

 

[atanu]

That's the thing, once your soul return to God, you'd cease to exist.

You will not feel happiness, because you don't exist anymore and you won't have any feeling whatsoever, let alone happiness. Hence, you can't feel anything, like contentment, pride, love, hate, pain, sorrow, etc.

You won't have any memories of your life, again, because you won't exist.

You won't be able to do anything, so there won't be enjoyment of your reward. Your reward will be absolute oblivion.

Then who actually exists as you?

 

[PolyHedral]

Then who actually exists as you?

Your personality and memory. That's all.

 

[Tellurian]

No, we see what we presume is the effects on the rotation of galaxies. We have NOT observed dark matter's affect on light. In point of fact it would not be called dark matter if it had affected light in any way; dark matter is an observation not an explanation. There aren't any particles associated with dark matters, and if there were, then perhaps dark matter has an electromagnetic interaction that is the real and true explanation for red shift and not the warping of space. The point here is that without associating dark matter with anything observable or testable (and we have not observed anything that can possibly be dark matter) that you could just as well be saying that "dark elves" did it. Phlogiston was a similar "scientific" error from before times; "Why did something happen? Phlogiston did it." If your explanation doesn't carry an ancillary qualities that are testable or observational components that we can look for, then your "explanation" is really just a placeholder for ignorance.

Dark matter has a gravitational lensing effect on light. For more explanation see:

How Gravitational Lensing Shows Us Dark Matter! : Starts With A Bang

CERN - Dark secrets of the Universe

The most likely particle associated with dark matter is the WIMP. Researchers are continuing to come up with results leading to a clearer explanation for the difficult to detect particle.

Dark matter found at last? WIMPS in space might hold the crucial clue | Mail Online

I didn't say "some god;" I said "God" as in a placeholder for that which transcends reality; consummate perfection; prime mover; first cause; transcendence; the absolute; etc.

Are you referring to some imagined, supposedly conscious, supernatural, human-like, "perfect" being?

I am asking you to consider what if REALITY were created. Reality = the system upon which all forms, types, qualities, aspects, facets, etc of Existence (unqualified) are dependent. Without reality there is nothing. Now that we had better be clear on what the terms mean: how do you respond to the possibility that Reality was created?

Are you referring to our reality, our universe, being created from membranes by an ekpyrotic explosive expansion that is described with M-Theory?

We have precisely zero evidence about the nature of Reality. As such we cannot make any strong claims about it, and if you try an use parsimony you are left with two equally complex claims about the nature of reality (they both require infinite unknown evidence as the question asks for information of which we are completely ignorant). With that said I am perfectly willing to posit a self-contained, eternal, uncreated reality wherein things exist, so I am not biased towards a "God" (I actually believe that an uncreated reality is more likely, but I know I can't discount "God" either).

MTF

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Communism makes perfect sense in a community that is reasonable and enlightened.

It makes no sense in humanity because we are not either of those for the most part.

I think the opinion of someone who has done such great things for humanity should be taken quite seriously, regardless of their specialization.

It should be taken as granted that someone who is as intelligent and observant as Dirac should have weight to his opinion. Every scientist worth their salt admits that their opinion < observation, but in the absence of firm evidence from observation or experimentation we should pay heed to the opinions of those whose insight penetrates deeper than most.

But one should not make the mistake of generalizing his insights into humanity at large; logic and science demand proper constraints, and so when your evidence is restricted largely to the West (not including equatorial Africa), then your conclusions need to be similarly constrained. Moreover, a man of his (obvious) education and rumination might very have not been able to relate well (nor often) to "the common man." Most people don't introspect to try to find values they hold dear; most people don't get PHD's.

The religion that you see predominantly in the West does seem to have a tendency to impede Science and does not seem (to me) to serve its original purposes anymore. We don't need religion as a unifying force; we have come up with all sorts of secular polemics that have a tendency to polarize the people into camps or cliques. We don't need religion as a guide to understanding the world around us; we have science for that. And with that said I can understand how someone can come to the conclusion that religion in general (or perhaps specifically western religion) is no longer needed.


But again I have to point out that human need for certainty (something that scientists who have trained long and hard to undermine this need and to value uncertainty which is frightening at least at first) means that something is going to be needed to fill religion's shoes if not some form of religion. Science (and more generally rationality) cannot give you certainty; it can only give you probabilities. This is not satisfactory for most people, especially when you consider that most people live in the common sense, face value world wherein the world around them is 100% certainly real (I mean really what is this dream bullcrap anyway? ).

As I have said before on previous threads: I think "the answer," assuming that one can be found, will lay in Science, Philosophy, and Mysticism (personal practice religion) getting together to identify what human values/needs are being addressed, what physiological and psychological elements are being utilized, and what organizational/societal constraints are still valid/need to be considered, and thus producing something that would not hinder human progress but would be able to satisfy most or all of the human utility functions that religion currently satisfies.


MTF

 

[gnostic]

For some just being part of god or the universe is reward enough. In some religions you are reborn in different live with no associations to your other lives other than your current fate, which is decided by how you lived your past life which you can not recall. It is still a reward for being good and still eternal life.

I don't think I am explaining it well, because I don't think you understand the implication. I wish I could remember who wrote this in one of the threads, because I could have quoted what he wrote.

There is no afterlife and no eternal life for you. Nothing about you exist in the soul. The soul have no memories, no personality. Your soul is not affected by your good works or stained by your sins.

According to the Jews, your soul is the breath of God, and it is only thing that keep you alive.

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Once you die, the soul leave your body and return to God. All souls, even the evil people who committed horrible crimes. The souls are not judged, rewarded or punished. The soul doesn't belong to you, but to God, and it would return to him regardless if you were good or bad in your mortal existence.

Do you remember what God said to Adam?

By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.&#8221;

 

[gnostic]

Ah, ha!

I found it.

It was post started by Ben Masada, called The Truth About the Soul.

I often disagree with what Ben writes and his view, but in this case, his view on the soul make a lot of sense.

 

[religion99]

Ah, ha!

I found it.

It was post started by Ben Masada, called The Truth About the Soul.

I often disagree with what Ben writes and his view, but in this case, his view on the soul make a lot of sense.

Then , how will you explain countless instances of reincarnations?

Just because Abraham Religions and Science agree on something doesn't automatically make it a FACT.

 

[Photonic]

Then , how will you explain countless instances of reincarnations?

Just because Abraham Religions and Science agree on something doesn't automatically make it a FACT.

Where is the evidence of reincarnation?

 

[atanu]

Your personality and memory. That's all.

Good post.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Dark matter has a gravitational lensing effect on light. For more explanation see:

How Gravitational Lensing Shows Us Dark Matter! : Starts With A Bang

CERN - Dark secrets of the Universe

The most likely particle associated with dark matter is the WIMP. Researchers are continuing to come up with results leading to a clearer explanation for the difficult to detect particle.

Dark matter found at last? WIMPS in space might hold the crucial clue | Mail Online



Are you referring to some imagined, supposedly conscious, supernatural, human-like, "perfect" being?



Are you referring to our reality, our universe, being created from membranes by an ekpyrotic explosive expansion that is described with M-Theory?

Gravitational lensing... Doesn't explain why these particles themselves do not interact with light. I understand that gravity is the strongest explanation for why what we assume is a lensing effect is occurring.

Why haven't WIMP's been found in a laboratory? Our particle accelerators have never produced anything with properties even remotely similar to a WIMP. Why is it that in the first 15 years of searching for WIMP's using methods exactly as described or similar to the one in the article you linked me to (Watch through the wormhole, they have a whole episode devoted to dark matter; the amount of "luck" in finding these things is atrocious) found nothing. If these particles are so massive, then why doesn't the atmosphere show signs of being knocked around by massive particle collisions.

The whole point is that all we have is an Observation. We don't have something being predicted that has a testable consequence. If you posit an invisible dragon that makes no noise, has no smell, and can pass through solid objects, then how is this any different than dark matter which has no known interactions, doesn't affect light except through gravity (which may not even be the case since other mechanisms can produce a lensing effect or simulate one), and apparently passes through objects all the time without leaving any trace.



And are you serious? Your bias against philosophy astounds me (this isn't even about religion anymore). Explain to me how you got imagined, conscious, supernatural, human-like being out of: "This "thing" if it can be called a thing has no attributable qualities; it is outside of existence entirely and to assert any qualities what-so-ever is false to the point of absurdity?"


No, I am not talking about our universe possibly being the result of a membrane. That is almost trivial in comparison to what I am actually asking you to consider. Assume for a moment that M theory is correct. Well, why are their strings at all? Why are there membranes? So you posit some explanation for membranes. This explanation needs some causal basis; something has to support this.

You do this however many times it takes to either find a breaking point BAM! This is the end OR find out that it can be shown that reality has no appreciable end point. Reality (this is universe + whatever might happen to be outside the universe) might be eternal and uncreated; it might be possible to back track in "time" as far back as you want to try. It might ALSO be possible that you can't; that reality has a firm beginning point.

What I am saying is I am asking you to consider what happens if the framework of existence; that system upon which all other systems are based; the quality or faculty which allows for bare existence to be true ITSELF HAD A BEGINNING?

This is the game two year olds play when they first learn the word "Why." They keep asking until a breaking point happens; either the other person gives up or they have no appreciable way to understand they answer and they give up. In this case, whether or not the universe has a beginning is only relevant IF AND ONLY IF you suppose that there is nothing outside the universe (No parallel universes, no membranes, no anything). But then, if you assume that the universe is in fact all there is, then you have to ask yourself: What happens if the universe actually had a beginning?


How do you get something from nothing? The answer is that given logic and existence you can't. As long as identity is in play (A=A is tautologically true), then you can't have creation ex nihilo. So then what if the universe (where we assume it is all there is) had a beginning? Well you need something which avoids logic entirely.

The only facet of logic which can derive anything (including the system within which it resides) is a contradiction. The principle of explosion allows you to get anything from a contradiction. The only way to assert a contradiction in a "valid" manner is if the entire universe of discourse were indeterminate.


What I am telling you is that if there is a First Cause; a Prime Mover; An Uncaused Causer; Consummate Perfection; Transcendent Absolute; etc then it has, First and Foremost, the property of being Completely and Utterly indiscriminate and nothing can be attributed to it in a manner which is true, and thus it is beyond the comprehension of beings which exist (flatly). It cannot be comprehended by us in anyway. The only thing to know about this "being" (it technically isn't a being) is that it is wholly unknowable.

There isn't any special relationship; no prayers; no mythos; no mind; no decisions; no awareness; NOTHING. This "thing" might technically be the only thing which can be called supernatural and still have the term mean a bloody thing.

Side Note: I don't believe there is actually any such thing as "supernatural." Either something is real and it has real effects; in which case it is natural, or it doesn't have any effects which aren't imagined; in which case it is imaginary and therefore not real. So if it turns out that turnips + wing of bat + tongue of salamander = live for 3000 years, then this still isn't supernatural; it's just a previously unexplored aspect of the natural world.

MTF

 

[Erebus]

I was wondering what the more religious inclined on here think of this statement?

All comments welcome.

I think he makes a fantastic empiricist and a terrible artist.

 

[Hari Krishna]

Where is the evidence of reincarnation?

Metabolism is synonymous with re-incarnation in this lifetime. The body is constantly transforming, no piece of matter within it remains the same.

Given that this process occurs from the moment of conception until death isn't it more logical to assume it will occur at death as well?

 

[PolyHedral]

Metabolism is synonymous with re-incarnation in this lifetime. The body is constantly transforming, no piece of matter within it remains the same.

Given that this process occurs from the moment of conception until death isn't it more logical to assume it will occur at death as well?

No, because you are comparing things which are not the same. The coherent whole "object" can have individual components swapped out of it without the object itself disappearing. What happens to a LEGO house when it is disassembled, and all the bricks built into a rocket ship?