Reincarnation

[Storm]

Then it isn't making a statement about reality.

Sure it is. It's just a speculative one.

 

[Kriya Yogi]

Sorry, I was vague. I meant body-mind dualism. You have to establish that there's some component of "mind" that isn't just an extension of the body.

So I'm guessing you don't take people's out of body experiences as true then? What about the proof of ghosts. Ghosts do exist. Also many people have flat lined seen the other side and then came back to their bodies.

There have been countless Yogi's that have proven to go breathless for hours if not days and then come back to their bodies just fine.

 

[Riverwolf]

Those of us who aren't scientists are under no obligation to think like scientists. Therefore, we can make all the speculative statements about reality that we wish. These can be based on what the scientific community says, yes, but it can also include other things which scientific thinking must, by its very nature, reject.

Therefore, I unscientifically believe that reincarnation happens, and I don't really see how science, as it is now, can even test it due to its nature.

 

[Riverwolf]

So I'm guessing you don't take people's out of body experiences as true then? What about the proof of ghosts. Ghosts do exist. Also many people have flat lined seen the other side and then came back to their bodies.

There have been countless Yogi's that have proven to go breathless for hours if not days and then come back to their bodies just fine.

I'm afraid science can't take these into account, because the only indications of these things are anecdotal, which science can't accept as evidence.

Sucks, yes, but that's how science must operate.

 

[Riverwolf]

In order for reincarnation to be even worth considering, you'd have to be able to support dualism in some way. AFAIK, there is no evidence for such an idea, automatically ruling reincarnation out.

Vinayaka just said that the mind DOESN'T get reincarnated. It dies a bit after the body.

 

[Kriya Yogi]

I'm afraid science can't take these into account, because the only indications of these things are anecdotal, which science can't accept as evidence.

Sucks, yes, but that's how science must operate.

I think they are testable. Ghosts have been proven. Have you ever watched Ghost hunters? People do that stuff for real all the time. Also people need air to live. If a Yogi goes breathless for hours and then comes back fine what would that indicate? That he can live without his body therefore proving that life doesn't end with the body.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think they are testable. Ghosts have been proven. Have you ever watched Ghost hunters?

You do know that television shows can be manipulated, right? Therefore, nothing on TV can influence our scientific knowledge.

People do that stuff for real all the time. Also people need air to live. If a Yogi goes breathless for hours and then comes back fine what would that indicate? That he can live without his body therefore proving that life doesn't end with the body.

But as far as I know, none of these have been tested and peer-reviewed, and therefore science does not accept them.

 

[Kriya Yogi]

You do know that television shows can be manipulated, right? Therefore, nothing on TV can influence our scientific knowledge.

I know that's why I'm saying real life experiments where scientists can be there to test it.

But as far as I know, none of these have been tested and peer-reviewed.

I'm saying if scientists took the time it is testable. I'm not saying the TV and stories are proof. I'm just saying they all are testable if they only cared enough to try.

 

[Riverwolf]

I know that's why I'm saying real life experiments where scientists can be there to test it.

I'm saying if scientists took the time it is testable. I'm not saying the TV and stories are proof. I'm just saying they all are testable if they only cared enough to try.

But there's therefore no proof, or even scientific evidence.

I do have sort of weak faith in the powers of Yogis, mostly because I've never seen them for myself; I've only read about them. As for ghosts, I am afraid of them; Paranormal Activity caused me to panic virtually every night for months. (Haven't watched it since.)

 

[PolyHedral]

So I'm guessing you don't take people's out of body experiences as true then? What about the proof of ghosts. Ghosts do exist. Also many people have flat lined seen the other side and then came back to their bodies.

The brain is stupendously effective at lying to the mind. (And the time needed for the brain to fail after the heart has stopped is non-instant, and AFAIK actually quite long.)

Those of us who aren't scientists are under no obligation to think like scientists. Therefore, we can make all the speculative statements about reality that we wish. These can be based on what the scientific community says, yes, but it can also include other things which scientific thinking must, by its very nature, reject.

You're right that nobody's under obligation to think scientifically, and of course anyone can speculate about anything, but promoting speculation as anything more than speculation without that scientific backing will give misleading results. Obviously, some things give more misleading results than others, but it's almost impossible to tell how misleading any given idea is without actually doing the science.

 

[Vinayaka]

And this is true because you said so, right?

Not at all ... read 'in my opinion' or did you miss that?

 

[Riverwolf]

You're right that nobody's under obligation to think scientifically, and of course anyone can speculate about anything, but promoting speculation as anything more than speculation without that scientific backing will give misleading results.

That's scientific-thinking, and that's what I'm saying people are under no obligation to do. The results could be misleading, but they may not be. Just because science doesn't have a conclusion about something (and therefore, by logic, must declare it false for now), doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

[PolyHedral]

That's scientific-thinking, and that's what I'm saying people are under no obligation to do. The results could be misleading, but they may not be. Just because science doesn't have a conclusion about something (and therefore, by logic, must declare it false for now), doesn't mean it isn't true.

Yes, but you'd be wrong to say that it was true, since you're essentially believing it to be true because you want it to be true, not because there is evidence for it.

 

[Koldo]

Not at all ... read 'in my opinion' or did you miss that?

I didn't miss that.

 

[Kriya Yogi]

But there's therefore no proof, or even scientific evidence.

I do have sort of weak faith in the powers of Yogis, mostly because I've never seen them for myself; I've only read about them. As for ghosts, I am afraid of them; Paranormal Activity caused me to panic virtually every night for months. (Haven't watched it since.)

I'm saying that it's possible to test these things as people are already doing it.

Yeah never wanted to watch it. Most if not all supernatural things are not atcually scary. Most are just normal beings lost in between here and afterlife.

 

[Kriya Yogi]

The brain is stupendously effective at lying to the mind. (And the time needed for the brain to fail after the heart has stopped is non-instant, and AFAIK actually quite long.)

If only I had a quarter for everytime I've heard this argument. The fact remains most atheists will never believe until they experience things for themselves. Even then they might pinch themselves and not believe their eyes.

 

[atanu]

There seem to be various conceptions of it, from the utterly materialistic ones of Kardecist Spiritism to the basically poetic concepts of what I believe to be traditional Hinduism.

I understand that Buddhism has elaborate concepts of reincarnation too?

 

[LuisDantas]

If only I had a quarter for everytime I've heard this argument. The fact remains most atheists will never believe until they experience things for themselves. Even then they might pinch themselves and not believe their eyes.

That is often a good thing, even if I don't agree that we atheists will necessarily "never believe without seeing" - and that too would probably be a good thing if it happened. Belief bears responsibility, and such responsibility is often misused where the more literal reincarnationist beliefs exist.

 

[PolyHedral]

If only I had a quarter for everytime I've heard this argument. The fact remains most atheists will never believe until they experience things for themselves. Even then they might pinch themselves and not believe their eyes.

Would you disagree that the brain "lies" to itself, or that you can experience things that aren't really there?

 

[LuisDantas]

I understand that Buddhism has elaborate concepts of reincarnation too?

Common mistake, but still very much a mistake. Most of the core concepts of Buddhism (such as Anatta, Interdependent Origination) are in fact specifically incompatible with the idea of reincarnation.