Anyone believes in reincarnation?

i dont believe in hell, satan, god, jesus, eaven, or the pugatory

but maybe reincarnation

cause that aint religion

How many chances do you want?

If the world's population has tripled since 1950, which ones of us are re-encarnated and which ones are "blank"? And why?

Why do people who think they are re-encarnated usually believe they were someone very important, galmourous or famous in their previous lives? (Can Cleopatra have so many women be re-encarnated from her?, for example?)

Would you be interested in a series of consultations to regress you back to your past existances (for a small charge)? If so, please PM me with your bank details for more info.

How many chances do you want?

If the world's population has tripled since 1950, which ones of us are re-encarnated and which ones are "blank"? And why?

Why do people who think they are re-encarnated usually believe they were someone very important, galmourous or famous in their previous lives? (Can Cleopatra have so many women be re-encarnated from her?, for example?)

Would you be interested in a series of consultations to regress you back to your past existances (for a small charge)? If so, please PM me with your bank details for more info.

 

RationalAtheist

Speaking of those annoying people who claim to be reincarnated from famous historical figures, I love how almost none of them are able to speak the language of the person they claim to have been despite having all of these "memories". I remember watching a video of this one woman in a "trance" speak in this horribly fake French accent as she recalled her "memories" as Marie Antoinette and facepalming the whole time.

Well I suppose it might be possible in a kind of science fiction type scenario where a computer emulates the exact functions of the brain or something along those lines.

Do I believe that a soul or something will continue to live on after my death? Nope. It might not be religion but it's still silly. warrenmats what is your basis for maybe believing in reincarnation? Is it just a feeling or do you have a reason.

i dont believe in hell, satan, god, jesus, eaven, or the pugatory

but maybe reincarnation

cause that aint religion

warrenmats

Why is it not a religion? Buddhism teaches about reincarnation mind you. On topic, I can't say I do but can't say I don't either. *shrugs*

Basically what RationalAtheist said - I don't see how the concept of reincarnation is even remotely compatible with the exponential growth of a population.GabuEx

Yous two are actually agreeing for once; wow, this is a very novel experience.:P

Yous two are actually agreeing for once; wow, this is a very novel experience.:P

MetalGear_Ninty

Feh, respect is more important than agreement, anyhow. :P

"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause & reflect."

- Mark Twain

Basically what RationalAtheist said - I don't see how the concept of reincarnation is even remotely compatible with the exponential growth of a population.GabuEx

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]Basically what RationalAtheist said - I don't see how the concept of reincarnation is even remotely compatible with the exponential growth of a population.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]Basically what RationalAtheist said - I don't see how the concept of reincarnation is even remotely compatible with the exponential growth of a population.foxhound_fox

Has anyone ever gone through that mathematically to figure out if that is even remotely feasible, even so?  That still seems to me as though there are just way too many bodies to each receive a reincarnated soul.

Has anyone ever gone through that mathematically to figure out if that is even remotely feasible, even so? That still seems to me as though there are just way too many bodies to each receive a reincarnated soul. GabuEx

*shrugs*

Like all religious belief, I doubt anyone has actually considered a realistic objective viewpoint of it.foxhound_fox

Well, it's an interesting idea, but to be honest it kind of strikes me as one that is easier to poke logical holes in than most religious beliefs...

Does the principle of reincarnation explain the creation of new entities?  (That is, are all things created once and do they then inhabit new bodies after their first body dies?)

Well, it's an interesting idea, but to be honest it kind of strikes me as one that is easier to poke logical holes in than most religious beliefs...

Does the principle of reincarnation explain the creation of new entities?  (That is, are all things created once and do they then inhabit new bodies after their first body dies?)

GabuEx

Well, generally in Hindu and Buddhist cosmology, the universe has always been and always will be. It is in a constant cycle of "creation" and "destruction" (in Hinduism) but it is not creation ex nihilo. Every living thing was "created" once and continues to exist until liberated from samsara.

I'd say that makes more sense than creation ex nihilo and new "souls" made constantly "adding" to the population.foxhound_fox

Does it believe that as more living things come into existence here, other living things go out of existence elsewhere?

I agree that it makes more sense at face value than creation ex nihilo, but I'm just curious how it overcomes what seem to be obvious logical hurdles.

Well for anyone interested here's a chapter from a book putting the doctrine of re-incarnation to test. 

Move on to the 13th paragraph which starts in bold.

Does it believe that as more living things come into existence here, other living things go out of existence elsewhere?

I agree that it makes more sense at face value than creation ex nihilo, but I'm just curious how it overcomes what seem to be obvious logical hurdles.

GabuEx

Well for anyone interested here's a chapter from a book putting the doctrine of re-incarnation to test. 

Move on to the 13th paragraph which starts in bold.

Gambler_3

1. Haha... no. Brahma is one of the least popular (out of thousands of temples, there are maybe 10 devoted to Brahma) and least important gods in the Hindu cosmology. Also, this articles conceptualization of the "realms of existence" is incredibly off.

2. I wonder why? I don't think the authors of the Vedas and Upanishads understood the concept of abiogenesis and evolution 2500-3500 years ago. They tried their best to explain the origin of life... and personally, I think they did a far better job than the Abrahamic religions. The quote mining regarding this point is quite funny. Many modern Hindu thinkers agree with the modern scientific explanation of the origin of life, and seek to contextualize the old scriptural texts with the new ideas.

3. This is obviously not a scholarly article (as it only has three references) and cannot be taken seriously. It is merely the authors interpretation of actual Hindu concepts and ideas... and from what I read, a lot of it is misinformation.foxhound_fox

2. Huh maybe the book is trying to show that the hindu creation story is a myth? What did you want that it just assumes that it's already established that it's man-made?:?

Well that's your opinion but I think it has something to do with your bias against christianity...

3. What references do you need in a chapter talking about the mathematical and scientific aspects of reincarnation? Again your attack is quite silly.:?

"The issue of Karma should also be examined from another angle. The term Karma applies to all actions for which the actor is answerable, i.e. he will be rewarded if the action is good, and punished if it is bad. This requires that the Divine Will must be clearly expressed, regarding the goodness or badness of actions, otherwise no one can know as to what God approves or disapproves. It is for this specific purpose that the four great rishis are placed in the beginning of mankind. If Vedic teachings had not been revealed to them, humans could not learn what was good or bad for them, hence they could not be held accountable for their Karmas. Thus the principle of Karma can only be applicable to humans alone, who are provided with a clear charter of do's and don'ts by the pioneer four rishis.

When it comes to animals, other than humans, the problem becomes rather complicated. Do all species have their own well-defined books based on Divine law? If not, how would they conduct themselves and how could their Karma be adjudged? Will their intuitive behaviour replace the Divine teachings? If it is the intuitive behaviour which fills the void of Divine teaching among animals, then how can they exercise any free choice?

Again, in humans, the Divine teachings are vouched through the human agency (the four rishis were no doubt human). But it is somewhat difficult for one to perceive the office of prophethood being discharged by animals. Every species has its own limited sphere of understanding, with a specific ingrained way of life. If prophets are to be sent to them, they must be sent separately to each species. If animal rishis are to be born among them they have to be born equally among the lions, the brown bears, the white bears, the hyenas, the reptiles, the fishes of all sorts and the birds of all feathers. Can one imagine for instance a prophet crow or a rishi wolf?"

Foxfound you really need to rethink about your love for hinduism, you have probably been misguided, it's all BS doesnt make any sense at all.

1. So what? What does popularity has to do with the status?:?

2. Huh maybe the book is trying to show that the hindu creation story is a myth? What did you want that it just assumes that it's already established that it's man-made?:?

Well that's your opinion but I think it has something to do with your bias against christianity...

3. What references do you need in a chapter talking about the mathematical and scientific aspects of reincarnation? Again your attack is quite silly.:?

Gambler_3

Foxfound you really need to rethink about your love for hinduism, you have probably been misguided, it's all BS doesnt make any sense at all. Gambler_3

1. The fact that both Shiva and Vishnu, the other two parts of the Trimurti, are given all the associative mythology and power in the universe. Brahma was created by Vishnu from his belly-button.

2. Uh... it is a myth, like any other creation myth. I doubt many hindu's these days accept it as historical fact... especially if they have a scientific education.|

Lol... I don't have a bias against Christianity. I just don't find it as interesting as other religions. I think you need to stop making such sweeping assumptions.

3. The author of your article obviously quote mined points of view that support his argument. A very non-scholarly method of proving a point.foxhound_fox

2. Why do you doubt that? Do you know how many educated chrsitians believe literally in adam eve?? I live in a country with 15million+ muslims and 99% of the people I have come across believe literally in adam eve, even dcotors.:shock:

It is a generally accepted thing here that darwins theory has been proven wrong.:?

You do know that the majority or atleast a large bulk of the hindu population are uneducated poor people? If you dont know then look at the poverty in india which houses most of the hindus in the world. Why exactly do you think that hindus would be any different than christians and muslims here?

3. Well I dont advocate the scholar, just like many theologians he is extremely biased and cherry picks to prove his point. However the logical fallacies of karma and reincarnation he brings are flawless which is why I linked this chapter.

Misguided? I'm not a Hindu... I'm not even religious. I just find the academic study of religion interesting and find Hinduism the most interesting religion/philosophy to come from the human mind. You may think it "is all BS" but you don't know if it is or not. We still don't know everything about the universe, and you never know, a religion might actually be "right."foxhound_fox

The only way a religion is right is if it was never meant to make any logical sense at all and there were intentional contradictions.

And just because you believe that all religion is wrong doesnt mean that you believe that God doesnt exist or that consiousness ceases permanently after death. These are the questions we dont have a definite answer yet but all religion is logically wrong.

1. But what the author stated was not wrong.

2. Why do you doubt that? Do you know how many educated chrsitians believe literally in adam eve?? I live in a country with 15million+ muslims and 99% of the people I have come across believe literally in adam eve, even dcotors.:shock:

It is a generally accepted thing here that darwins theory has been proven wrong.:?

You do know that the majority or atleast a large bulk of the hindu population are uneducated poor people? If you dont know then look at the poverty in india which houses most of the hindus in the world. Why exactly do you think that hindus would be any different than christians and muslims here?

3. Well I dont advocate the scholar, just like many theologians he is extremely biased and cherry picks to prove his point. However the logical fallacies of karma and reincarnation he brings are flawless which is why I linked this chapter.Gambler_3

1. Logically all religion is wrong end of story. There are many many falt out absurd contradictions and logical fallacies in every religion. As a scientific hypothesis religion fails hard. It is only the irrational respect of religions and mystery of the unknown which makes us say that maybe someone is "right".

2. The only way a religion is right is if it was never meant to make any logical sense at all and there were intentional contradictions.

3. And just because you believe that all religion is wrong doesnt mean that you believe that God doesnt exist or that consiousness ceases permanently after death. These are the questions we dont have a definite answer yet but all religion is logically wrong.

Gambler_3

1. Oh but it is. Brahma is not the "chief" deity. To many sects, Shiva and Vishnu are, Brahma is not. Brahma as compared to Shiva and Vishnu is secondary by comparison. This article is completely wrong about Brahma. Period. He grew from a lotus flower that sprung from Vishnu's belly-button and then created the Earth/universe. He plays no real role in religious practice or devotion.

2. Give me any university/college (non-religious institution) educated Christian who believes in the literal creation story from the OT. And isn't a fundamentalist with an agenda.

What country do you live in? Is it one that uses Islamic law as a means of governance? Because then it would be understandable why they reject science.

3. They aren't flawless, this misrepresent the ideas... which is why I question his credibility. And quote mining in any sense, whether you like the points he brings up or not, is incredibly un-scrupulous.

foxhound_fox

2.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKcrqvOF0Uc&feature=PlayList&p=467E296591C354B3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=15

Watch it, within a few minutes it'll give you what you want.

Surely all those non-blue people arent uneducated or extremists?

I live in pakistan and yes islamic law is used although not as much as in saudi.

3. How exactly do you know that the author took the quotes out of context?:?

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]1. Logically all religion is wrong end of story. There are many many falt out absurd contradictions and logical fallacies in every religion. As a scientific hypothesis religion fails hard. It is only the irrational respect of religions and mystery of the unknown which makes us say that maybe someone is "right".

2. The only way a religion is right is if it was never meant to make any logical sense at all and there were intentional contradictions.

3. And just because you believe that all religion is wrong doesnt mean that you believe that God doesnt exist or that consiousness ceases permanently after death. These are the questions we dont have a definite answer yet but all religion is logically wrong.

foxhound_fox

I absolutely despise the double standards of these so called "moderates". You either believe in religion or you dont, there is no middle ground in it. People who break the 10 commandants on a daily basis and yet profess to strongly believe in the bible / quran are being absolutly dishonest. They are playing the pascals wager and / or are just afraid of the unknown and / or have too much respect for their religion to challenge it's validity. Atleast an extremist is being honest!!

2. Yes but when something is open to such interpretation it loses all meaning of "the truth".

"All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." -Friedrich Nietzsche

I am only concerned with religion to know if it actually answers the reason for my existence. I dont need religion for any moral guidance or lessons. It carries no historical value cuz you know it's just a myth, for people who believed in it for centuries it really did carry alot of historical value...

3. lol wut? If God exists but there is no hell or paradise than chrsitianity and islam is wrong...a religion being wrong doesnt mean that it is 100% wrong but for a religion to be "true" it has to be 100% true.

1. He is the creator of the universe and the first in the trinity. You can argue about technical details like "chief" but you passed off the author as clueless on the subject which is not at all the case. I just read the wiki atricle on hindu trinity and brahma and I see nothing wrong with what I linked. Brahma is the creator and I think the author of that atricle was talking about the hindu creation story, no wonder he brought up brahma duh!Gambler_3

3. How exactly do you know that the author took the quotes out of context?:?Gambler_3

1. God IS a scientific hypothesis. People can spin it all they want "bu bu teh religion is teh personal belief and nothing to do with teh science". I am sorry but I dont accept that.Gambler_3

I absolutely despise the double standards of these so called "moderates". You either believe in religion or you dont, there is no middle ground in it. People who break the 10 commandants on a daily basis and yet profess to strongly believe in the bible / quran are being absolutly dishonest. They are playing the pascals wager and / or are just afraid of the unknown and / or have too much respect for their religion to challenge it's validity. Atleast an extremist is being honest!!Gambler_3

2. Yes but when something is open to such interpretation it loses all meaning of "the truth".Gambler_3

I am only concerned with religion to know if it actually answers the reason for my existence. I dont need religion for any moral guidance or lessons. It carries no historical value cuz you know it's just a myth, for people who believed in it for centuries it really did carry alot of historical value...Gambler_3

3. lol wut? If God exists but there is no hell or paradise than chrsitianity and islam is wrong...a religion being wrong doesnt mean that it is 100% wrong but for a religion to be "true" it has to be 100% true.Gambler_3

1. Not out of context, quit strawmaning my position. You really have to address that problem of yours. Read what I post, not what you think I post. He takes quotes that support his position, and doesn't take all sides into account, like a proper scholar would. This reads like the work of a high school student needing a passing grade and doing only the work necessary to get it.

2. Ah, now I see... you are the authority on what is considered "fact" in the world. Even when it comes to what religious people believe.

3. Lol. Religion varies from person to person. That is what makes it different from science. It is philosophy, a meansof interpreting the "why" and not the "how."

4. More contradictions. Religion is "100% true" to the individual. It does not have to be objectively true to carry subjective truth along with it. foxhound_fox

"The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

:roll:

2. Ofcourse there was never a thing called opinion.:roll:

3. lol lol lol religion is a philosophy? Haha that's a new one...for YOU it maybe a philosophy that's because you are non-religious but for people who actually believe it is "the truth".

4. *sigh* 

We were talking about religion's claims of being the objective truth. An individual can believe whatever they want to.

1. You said the article was "quote mining",

"The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

:roll:

Gambler_3

3. lol lol lol religion is a philosophy? Haha that's a new one...for YOU it maybe a philosophy that's because you are non-religious but for people who actually believe it is "the truth".Gambler_3

4. *sigh* 

We were talking about religion's claims of being the objective truth. An individual can believe whatever they want to.

Gambler_3

Sorry I'm not a walking dictionary. Regardless, the passages he chose did not give the entire picture and were picked solely because they supported his position.

foxhound_fox

I mean what is your point all about? Every author quotes other people to make a point.:|

'... those scholars whose minds have been fed with the spurious Darwinian theory of evolution, find it difficult to understand this secret of revelation. However, we have overwhelming evidences to show that man's earlier stage was a better one, and there is no ground to believe that the pre-historic men were necessarily primitive. The Vedic rishis were not simple minded people. They were poets, visionaries, and spiritualists, all the three in one. Their students who too were rishis by their own rights, were capable of understanding the real import of the mantras the moment they heard them... we are also told that there was a gradual deterioration of the psycho mental powers of the people. The generation of the seers also started disappearing.'1

:lol:

Did you even read what he quoted? It is far too obvious that the guy is just an apologetic of the literal hindu creation story and simply rejects science altogether. The islamic author is simply giving a response to it.

You it seems like had already pre-concieved the article as being nonsense, I wonder if the name of the webiste has somethin to do with it...

Yes, I fully believe in reincarnation, and am honestly surprised at the amount of people that find it such a far-fetched belief. Living in bliss with an eternal father is just as ludicrous and out there to me. I suppose the main reason is I see no end to things. Existence never ends, it simply changes. I also look at the expanse of the universe and tend to think to myself, "what an awful waste of space." Who's to say Earth is the only place souls are reborn into? That's a bit narrow minded, don't you think?

I can't say I enjoy holding this belief however as living again is not something I wish to endure. Hopefully you guys are right and I'm wrong, but until then....

I suppose the main reason is I see no end to things. Existence never ends, it simply changes. 

Rekunta

Existence never ends has absolutely nothing to do with consiousness ending....

[QUOTE="Rekunta"]

I suppose the main reason is I see no end to things. Existence never ends, it simply changes.

Gambler_3

Existence never ends has absolutely nothing to do with consiousness ending....

Nor did I say it did. I don't believe consiousness carries on at all...

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="Rekunta"]

I suppose the main reason is I see no end to things. Existence never ends, it simply changes.

 

Rekunta

Existence never ends has absolutely nothing to do with consiousness ending....

Nor did I say it did. I don't believe consiousness carries on at all...

Are you sure it's reincarnation you believe in and not the conservation of energy?

[QUOTE="Rekunta"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="Rekunta"]

I suppose the main reason is I see no end to things. Existence never ends, it simply changes.

 

domatron23

Existence never ends has absolutely nothing to do with consiousness ending....

Nor did I say it did. I don't believe consiousness carries on at all...

Are you sure it's reincarnation you believe in and not the conservation of energy?

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Rekunta"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="Rekunta"]

I suppose the main reason is I see no end to things. Existence never ends, it simply changes.

Gambler_3

Existence never ends has absolutely nothing to do with consiousness ending....

Nor did I say it did. I don't believe consiousness carries on at all...

Are you sure it's reincarnation you believe in and not the conservation of energy?

I'm not exactly sure. :P

I believe consciousness ceases and energy, as Einstein stated, never ceases to exist, it simply transforms. It is reborn into a new body, I suppose you could call it the soul? I don't know, I can't define specifics. Basically I believe energy is continually recycled into new life over and over, and tend also to believe that past actions influence the circumstances you encounter (or are born into) in subsequent lives.

Sorry if that doesn't make sense, but that's the best way I can describe it. What exact belief am I tending towards here? I've always gravitated towards and taken elements from Hinduism and Buddhism.

[...]

I believe consciousness ceases and energy, as Einstein stated, never ceases to exist, it simply transforms. It is reborn into a new body, I suppose you could call it the soul? I don't know, I can't define specifics. Basically I believe energy is continually recycled into new life over and over, and tend also to believe that past actions influence the circumstances you encounter (or are born into) in subsequent lives. [...]

Rekunta