Reincarnation - have you changed your mind?

[Neeranam]

Kovaltech

What exactly did you find so insulting ?

Are you suggesting those that believe in reincarnation should be allowed to drink drive or do anything else they desire without censure?

Do you believe very young children should be indoctrinated into certain beliefs , would you not consider this abusive ?

Sharing my experience with my chikdren is not abusive.

[partington]

Karl Marx was spot on when he described religion as Opium for the masses. I used to believe that belief in reincarnation was harmless but my views have changed over time. There is little doubt that in Thailand both social mobility and social responsibility have been seriously hindered by current interpretation of Budhism.

Belief in reincarnation is harmful?

What a strange thing to say.

I don't belong to any religion but believe in reincarnation.

Why?

Are you calling Stephen Hawking stupid? Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics better than one of the greatest astrophysicists who has ever lived?

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark," he added.

Interview with Stephen Hawking, 2011 The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven

Which law of thermodynamics is being violated by the belief in reincarnation, and how so?

Another quote from Mr. Hawking in the article you linked to is "Scientists predict that many kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing." This is also the consensus of many scientists in the way that our current universe was created. Out of nothing. How is this belief supported by any physical law?

I don't profess to know the answers. Scientist say there was nothing, and then the universe just happened. Believers in a supernatural power say that there was nothing, and then the universe was created by this supernatural power. Why is either more or less believable than the other? Both sound pretty magical to me.

So I see no reason to believe that some sort of existence after physical death is impossible. I can't see that it is any more impossible than the universe spontaneously being created out of nothing.

Briefly: for people who don't really know any science ( one poster believing in reincarnation scathingly asked a sceptic to "read the laws of thermodynamics") the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed leads them instantly to a belief in immortality through some vague verbal association because they don't really understand what it means..

They think somehow they have thought of something, that no-one else has, that shows "the soul" is immortal ( I don't believe in souls but many people do).

I do not think these people would argue that a fire can never go out, or a car can run infinitely on a tank of fuel, "because energy cannot be destroyed", but somehow they think if they refer to souls, it suddenly becomes a great argument. It's nonsense.

I was attempting to point out that a man who probably understands physics better than most people on earth does not even consider that current knowledge hints at immortality or afterlives.

(I do think that quoting people just because they are famous or clever is a bit stupid (including me quoting Hawking) because this is merely quoting "authorities", which is what religious people do when they quote scripture, and has no standing whatsoever. Only evidence has authority. But unlike religious leaders, Hawking is basing what he says on 400 years of accumulated scientific knowledge, so providing this is understood I think it's OK. Hawking is speaking as a man who understands the evidence.)

This leads me to the final point: without a knowledge of the physics involved, arguing that the universe arising from nothing seems just as magical to you as life after death is not really an argument. They both sound the same to you because you haven't examined the physical experimental evidence for each.

Scientists do not make things up out of thin air. They observe what happens in the physical universe by doing experiments, and by constructing mathematical equations that predict what will happen in certain situations if the equations are correct. They test the predictions of these equations and if they prove to describe accurately what is actually observed at the subatomic level, then those equations are trusted and used to predict other behaviours, which are then also tested. The theories of the creation of nothing out of something are based on observations. They will be abandoned if they cease to be predictive. They are based on facts, including facts that they have spent billions of dollars making particle accelerators to discover.

The statements about afterlives and heavens, including the one above that claimed to know the actual colour of the place souls come from (rose pink was it?) are simply made up and based on nothing. They cannot predict and are are not falsifiable.

Though they sound the same to you, one has no grounding in any methodology, and one is based on painstaking observation, experiment, and mathematical models which can predict what will happen and can be tested.

If I said the place souls hang out is really green, this is a made up untestable statement. If I can experimentally show particles that were not in existence suddenly appearing, this is not.

Edited July 15, 2014 by partington

[OmegaRacer]

I agree on many of your points, however I must point out that while science or the scientific method goes back 400 years, the 'science' of the mind has been explored and mapped for much much longer than that. You can't use the tools you use in science to prove or disprove those findings, just like you can't use carpenter tools to do brain surgery. Each has its place and function and one doesn't have to negate the other. They complement each other.

The whole argument that spirituality doesn't exist because it can't be subjected to scientific analysis is fundamentally flawed. There have been attempts to do so, that were more or less successful, but they can only scratch the surface of what is at least for now, beyond the scientific reach.

If you're a scientific minded person, you have to keep an open mind and not exclude possibilities that don't fit with your belief system.

The inner worlds are open for everyone to explore. There are maps in place that describe the pitfalls and breakthroughs you will encounter. Don't believe what others say about it, test it yourself. Sure, it takes preseverance and dedication, but the rewards are beyond description.

Sadly, for many it's much easier to outright deny and/or ridicule those teachings than to actually trying to find the truth.

[Thakkar]

Believing is a belief.

Not believing is a belief.

P.S., you don't come back, you are already "there."

That's like saying:

Eating is ingesting

Not eating is ingesting

Not believing means keeping an open mind, willing be swayed by logic and evidence. It is not quite the same as having a (religious) belief, which is embrace of a set conviction of life and the universe with no evidential backing and an unwillingness to consider other possibilities.

T

[kannot]

Kovaltech

What exactly did you find so insulting ?

Are you suggesting those that believe in reincarnation should be allowed to drink drive or do anything else they desire without censure?

Do you believe very young children should be indoctrinated into certain beliefs , would you not consider this abusive ?

Sharing my experience with my chikdren is not abusive.

That would depend on "how" you explained it to them.

[kannot]

I agree on many of your points, however I must point out that while science or the scientific method goes back 400 years, the 'science' of the mind has been explored and mapped for much much longer than that. You can't use the tools you use in science to prove or disprove those findings, just like you can't use carpenter tools to do brain surgery. Each has its place and function and one doesn't have to negate the other. They complement each other.

The whole argument that spirituality doesn't exist because it can't be subjected to scientific analysis is fundamentally flawed. There have been attempts to do so, that were more or less successful, but they can only scratch the surface of what is at least for now, beyond the scientific reach.

If you're a scientific minded person, you have to keep an open mind and not exclude possibilities that don't fit with your belief system.

The inner worlds are open for everyone to explore. There are maps in place that describe the pitfalls and breakthroughs you will encounter. Don't believe what others say about it, test it yourself. Sure, it takes preseverance and dedication, but the rewards are beyond description.

Sadly, for many it's much easier to outright deny and/or ridicule those teachings than to actually trying to find the truth.

and reading this claptrap makes me see why, I always love words like "spirituality" something else that doesnt exist like "souls"

[Pralaad]

Nice to think there is more than ending up as just a worm buffet, or bbq and smoke depending on your preference.

But its all a matter of the what the individual wants to "believe".

There is some science to it as well.

Body being powered by energy, energy has to go somewhere after the body dies.

Personally watched 2 people die and i am certain i felt or saw(really can not put the feeling into words) that energy(soul) leave the body

Cars are powered by energy

I used to have a 69 GTO when I was in high school.

I really miss that car, do you think there is a chance it might come back?

Cars are powered by gas or petrol and energy produced goes to move the car .

Car is a piece of metal and plastic, comparing it to human body is beyond foolish

Edited July 15, 2014 by Pralaad

[kannot]

I believe in reincarnation. I do not have any personal experience with reincarnation, nor do I profess to know how it works. I believe that it is probably more complicated than I can comprehend. I remember reading Rene Descartes proof for the existence of God, and remember a quote by a Pope (I don't remember who) who likened that the universe being created without a God was analogous to spilling sand and it forming a masterpiece (something to that effect at least). It made sense to me, so I do believe in "something beyond".

From reading alot of posts, I have the distinct impression that most people on TV are either atheists or agnostic and I certainly don't think it is right to tell anyone that there beliefs are wrong.

I also believe that alot of things that Thai people do that Westerners are puzzled at, are based on the belief in reincarnation. As a people and compared to people in the West, Thais are extremely religious in terms of the percentage of people that believe. It's not hard to find an atheist/agnostic in the West, much harder to find a Thai atheist. So when I see posts about how life is cheap in Thailand, or why don't Thais wear helmets, or why are Thais so careless in doing such and such when it could cause death, my thoughts are well it's because virtually all Thais believe in reincarnation and believe that some things like your death are predestined, and (if you made merit in this life) your next life will be better so why ake a big deal about it.

Why make a big deal??? because its stupid and affects my non believing right to live my life not be wiped out by a moron driving a bus on the phone and weaving in an out of traffic at will.

Words fail me for someone who alledges to have had an education.

Religion is child abuse pure an simple and that includes the Thai Buddhist system, its a disgrace.

Kannot, i believe you'r craving for a ticket out of Thailand?

I believe its almost impossible to find a bigger insult as that what you wrote above...

So stuff it, you are a disgrace...

Nope

[kannot]

Nice to think there is more than ending up as just a worm buffet, or bbq and smoke depending on your preference.

But its all a matter of the what the individual wants to "believe".

There is some science to it as well.

Body being powered by energy, energy has to go somewhere after the body dies.

Personally watched 2 people die and i am certain i felt or saw(really can not put the feeling into words) that energy(soul) leave the body

Cars are powered by energy

I used to have a 69 GTO when I was in high school.

I really miss that car, do you think there is a chance it might come back?

Im sure with enuff munnnnny it could

[partington]

I agree on many of your points, however I must point out that while science or the scientific method goes back 400 years, the 'science' of the mind has been explored and mapped for much much longer than that. You can't use the tools you use in science to prove or disprove those findings, just like you can't use carpenter tools to do brain surgery. Each has its place and function and one doesn't have to negate the other. They complement each other.

The whole argument that spirituality doesn't exist because it can't be subjected to scientific analysis is fundamentally flawed. There have been attempts to do so, that were more or less successful, but they can only scratch the surface of what is at least for now, beyond the scientific reach.

If you're a scientific minded person, you have to keep an open mind and not exclude possibilities that don't fit with your belief system.

The inner worlds are open for everyone to explore. There are maps in place that describe the pitfalls and breakthroughs you will encounter. Don't believe what others say about it, test it yourself. Sure, it takes preseverance and dedication, but the rewards are beyond description.

Sadly, for many it's much easier to outright deny and/or ridicule those teachings than to actually trying to find the truth.

You can't put "science" in quotes, as if there are two kinds of science. Findings that cannot be examined by scientific methods are not "findings", and so are not things that have been "explored and mapped".

The verifiable existence of hallucinations proves that personal experiences are not evidence, and that they can be completely false. If you argue from personal experience there is no way to ascertain whether you are simply mistaken.

"Open-minded" does not mean thinking that it is somehow optional whether you need to use evidence acquired by repeated experimentation and observation to prove what you say about the world is true- it is not an option.

It means being open-minded about accepting what the evidence is indicating.

No-one is arguing that people don't have meaningful internal experiences that can change their lives. What is being argued is that these experiences do not tell you about what is true, and how the universe works.

If you have a frightening dream about a monster, this is not evidence that the monster really exists, though it can be a life changing experience.

[thailiketoo]

Kovaltech

What exactly did you find so insulting ?

Are you suggesting those that believe in reincarnation should be allowed to drink drive or do anything else they desire without censure?

Do you believe very young children should be indoctrinated into certain beliefs , would you not consider this abusive ?

Sharing my experience with my chikdren is not abusive.

That would depend on "how" you explained it to them.

My father had a piano teacher who hit his hands with a ruler if he played a wrong note. It taught him to play the piano. My dad tried it with me and I punched him.

[OmegaRacer]

I'm not trying to put them on the same level. Just as science explores and maps the manifest world, there's another 'science', or school of thought, that explores and maps the unmanifest world.

Like I said, don't take my or anybody else's word for it. Find out by yourself.

Or are you waiting for science to give you all the answers you need.

In any case, I don't expect anyone to change his mind about life just by reading some forum posts. I know I wouldn't.

People always find evidence somewhere for what they already believe, whatever that might be.

All I'm saying is: I know nothing, you know nothing about life and death. Science and spirituality are different pieces of a big puzzle and a true seeker of truth is well advised to embrace both.

[sirineou]

Nice to think there is more than ending up as just a worm buffet, or bbq and smoke depending on your preference.

But its all a matter of the what the individual wants to "believe".

There is some science to it as well.

Body being powered by energy, energy has to go somewhere after the body dies.

Personally watched 2 people die and i am certain i felt or saw(really can not put the feeling into words) that energy(soul) leave the body

Cars are powered by energy

I used to have a 69 GTO when I was in high school.

I really miss that car, do you think there is a chance it might come back?

Cars are powered by gas or petrol and energy produced goes to move the car .

Car is a piece of metal and plastic, comparing it to human body is beyond foolish

Unless of course you consider the human body to be a biological machine

PS; thinking that I compared the human body to a car is beyond foolish , energy does not go anywhere, energy is converted to different type of energy.

Edited July 15, 2014 by sirineou

[thailiketoo]

I'm not trying to put them on the same level. Just as science explores and maps the manifest world, there's another 'science', or school of thought, that explores and maps the unmanifest world.

Like I said, don't take my or anybody else's word for it. Find out by yourself.

Or are you waiting for science to give you all the answers you need.

In any case, I don't expect anyone to change his mind about life just by reading some forum posts. I know I wouldn't.

People always find evidence somewhere for what they already believe, whatever that might be.

All I'm saying is: I know nothing, you know nothing about life and death. Science and spirituality are different pieces of a big puzzle and a true seeker of truth is well advised to embrace both.

I'm supposed to measure the speed of light?

[thailiketoo]

Cars are powered by gas or petrol and energy produced goes to move the car .

Car is a piece of metal and plastic, comparing it to human body is beyond foolish

Unless of course you consider the human body to be a biological machine

PS; thinking that I compared the human body to a car is beyond foolish , energy does not go anywhere, energy is converted to different type of energy.

I don't see the difference? Or. Of course I see the difference. But we are talking about different differences.

[Thakkar]

Where were the souls before the earth was formed?

In God's waiting room, wishing they had heels to cool!

T

[opalred]

i believe in santa claus to

[Thakkar]

For most people, knowing what is before your born and after your body dies, is totally errased from your memory bank each time you arrive on earth and leave. Being able to open the doors of memory to the Unknown takes many lives of meditation and mystical practical applications. I began my quest in a Mystery School in 1964 this life and within 10 years was able to start opening the doors of memory and further understand the laws of reincarnation. Soul in endless and has no limites being WE our Soul is a part of what thought us into our present creation. Our soul is in one respect a large storage bank of feelings and thoughts that accumilate as each human life is experienced, but being soul has no limites, more than one life can be experienced at a time. Belief is based on ignorance and superstition. Knowledge is based on scientific fact, whether that science be earth material science or mystical science.

I was ok with this wooist mubo jumbo until the last line, please don't use the term science, you don't understand what the word means, "mystical science"?

"Intelligent Design" is a mystical science.

So is the ability of Mrs T to get that one last blop of toothpaste from the toothpaste tube that every one else swore was completely empty.

T

[FredLee]

Why?

Are you calling Stephen Hawking stupid? Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics better than one of the greatest astrophysicists who has ever lived?

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark," he added.

Interview with Stephen Hawking, 2011 The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven

Which law of thermodynamics is being violated by the belief in reincarnation, and how so?

Another quote from Mr. Hawking in the article you linked to is "Scientists predict that many kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing." This is also the consensus of many scientists in the way that our current universe was created. Out of nothing. How is this belief supported by any physical law?

I don't profess to know the answers. Scientist say there was nothing, and then the universe just happened. Believers in a supernatural power say that there was nothing, and then the universe was created by this supernatural power. Why is either more or less believable than the other? Both sound pretty magical to me.

So I see no reason to believe that some sort of existence after physical death is impossible. I can't see that it is any more impossible than the universe spontaneously being created out of nothing.

Briefly: for people who don't really know any science ( one poster believing in reincarnation scathingly asked a sceptic to "read the laws of thermodynamics") the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed leads them instantly to a belief in immortality through some vague verbal association because they don't really understand what it means..

They think somehow they have thought of something, that no-one else has, that shows "the soul" is immortal ( I don't believe in souls but many people do).

I do not think these people would argue that a fire can never go out, or a car can run infinitely on a tank of fuel, "because energy cannot be destroyed", but somehow they think if they refer to souls, it suddenly becomes a great argument. It's nonsense.

I was attempting to point out that a man who probably understands physics better than most people on earth does not even consider that current knowledge hints at immortality or afterlives.

(I do think that quoting people just because they are famous or clever is a bit stupid (including me quoting Hawking) because this is merely quoting "authorities", which is what religious people do when they quote scripture, and has no standing whatsoever. Only evidence has authority. But unlike religious leaders, Hawking is basing what he says on 400 years of accumulated scientific knowledge, so providing this is understood I think it's OK. Hawking is speaking as a man who understands the evidence.)

This leads me to the final point: without a knowledge of the physics involved, arguing that the universe arising from nothing seems just as magical to you as life after death is not really an argument. They both sound the same to you because you haven't examined the physical experimental evidence for each.

Scientists do not make things up out of thin air. They observe what happens in the physical universe by doing experiments, and by constructing mathematical equations that predict what will happen in certain situations if the equations are correct. They test the predictions of these equations and if they prove to describe accurately what is actually observed at the subatomic level, then those equations are trusted and used to predict other behaviours, which are then also tested. The theories of the creation of nothing out of something are based on observations. They will be abandoned if they cease to be predictive. They are based on facts, including facts that they have spent billions of dollars making particle accelerators to discover.

The statements about afterlives and heavens, including the one above that claimed to know the actual colour of the place souls come from (rose pink was it?) are simply made up and based on nothing. They cannot predict and are are not falsifiable.

Though they sound the same to you, one has no grounding in any methodology, and one is based on painstaking observation, experiment, and mathematical models which can predict what will happen and can be tested.

If I said the place souls hang out is really green, this is a made up untestable statement. If I can experimentally show particles that were not in existence suddenly appearing, this is not.

Thanks for the reply, and for clearing up the remark about thermodynamics, I thought you were saying that existence after physical death would violate one of the laws.

I quoted Hawking, using the same article you linked to and quoted from, to show that even brilliant people sometimes promote ideas that are not proven.

Additionally, I am not making any argument as to whether there is some sort of existence after physical death, or whether or not the universe just appeared on its own. Yes, mathematical constructs have been developed supporting the idea of a big bang or as it is sometimes called now, the big expansion, just as there are mathematical constructs showing nothing could escape from a black hole. I mention the black holes only to show that mathematical constructs are not always correct, as now Mr. Hawking affirms that matter can escape. I am only saying that one is as plausible as the other. The creation of the universe out of nothing defies all physical laws, and no number of mathematical constructs or particle accelerator experiments to date changes that. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen that way, it just means it is unproven, and at least for now, unprovable.

And yes, I do think the idea of existence after death magical, as well as the idea that the universe came into existence from nothing. I am not arguing that either or both are true or not, and compare them only to the extent they both seem magical to me. Just think about the creation of the universe. Out of nothingness, our entire universe came into being. Scientists say that there was a singularity that contained our entire universe. All the billions of galaxies, each with their own billions of stars, all energy, time, and even the empty space itself that are part of our universe was contained in this infinitely dense point in space that had zero volume, and for reasons unknown spontaneously expanded into our universe. No one knows how this singularity came to be in the first place, in fact it is unproven that it even existed at all, yet here we all are. Seems magical to me.

One final note: I try to stay away from religious beliefs when talking about the origins of the universe. I do like to try to make the point that both the scientific explanation and creationist explanation are equally plausible, or implausible if you prefer. Another point I try to bring up is that religious belief is not required to believe in life after death. I realize most religions promote the thought of life after death, but this should not preclude the non-religious from thinking their might be some scientific explanation for an existence after physical death.

[Kitsune]

I had an NDE at the age of 15.

So for me there is no question about it.

Death is not the end, only a passage between 2 worlds.

Ohhh sure, near death experience, I have one of these in the BQE (Brooklyn Queens Express)every day.

but did you have a death experience and come back? near only counts on a game of horse shoes.

I'm just sharing my experience.

You don't have to believe me.

Anyway, I do believe inreincanation, but it seems all too convenient that people only reincarnate as people.

I am pretty sure animals do change species and therefore so do we, after all we are all animals.

[Kitsune]

i believe in santa claus to

but not in spelling unfortunately !

[thailiketoo]

Thanks for the reply, and for clearing up the remark about thermodynamics, I thought you were saying that existence after physical death would violate one of the laws.

I quoted Hawking, using the same article you linked to and quoted from, to show that even brilliant people sometimes promote ideas that are not proven.

Additionally, I am not making any argument as to whether there is some sort of existence after physical death, or whether or not the universe just appeared on its own. Yes, mathematical constructs have been developed supporting the idea of a big bang or as it is sometimes called now, the big expansion, just as there are mathematical constructs showing nothing could escape from a black hole. I mention the black holes only to show that mathematical constructs are not always correct, as now Mr. Hawking affirms that matter can escape. I am only saying that one is as plausible as the other. The creation of the universe out of nothing defies all physical laws, and no number of mathematical constructs or particle accelerator experiments to date changes that. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen that way, it just means it is unproven, and at least for now, unprovable.

And yes, I do think the idea of existence after death magical, as well as the idea that the universe came into existence from nothing. I am not arguing that either or both are true or not, and compare them only to the extent they both seem magical to me. Just think about the creation of the universe. Out of nothingness, our entire universe came into being. Scientists say that there was a singularity that contained our entire universe. All the billions of galaxies, each with their own billions of stars, all energy, time, and even the empty space itself that are part of our universe was contained in this infinitely dense point in space that had zero volume, and for reasons unknown spontaneously expanded into our universe. No one knows how this singularity came to be in the first place, in fact it is unproven that it even existed at all, yet here we all are. Seems magical to me.

One final note: I try to stay away from religious beliefs when talking about the origins of the universe. I do like to try to make the point that both the scientific explanation and creationist explanation are equally plausible, or implausible if you prefer. Another point I try to bring up is that religious belief is not required to believe in life after death. I realize most religions promote the thought of life after death, but this should not preclude the non-religious from thinking their might be some scientific explanation for an existence after physical death.

Creationism is not debated by serious scientists anymore. I think that stopped a couple of hundred years ago maybe more.

One theory of creation is not as plausible as the other.

Life after death is a religious myth. I learned this in college 40 years ago and my father 100 years ago and his father 150 years ago.

Who talks about this stuff anymore? Not in any non religious institution of higher learning except as an example of folklore.

[thailiketoo]

I'm just sharing my experience.

You don't have to believe me.

Anyway, I do believe inreincanation, but it seems all too convenient that people only reincarnate as people.

I am pretty sure animals do change species and therefore so do we, after all we are all animals.

OK I'll bite. What makes you pretty sure animals change species? PS I won't bother to correct your spelling as I understand what you mean.

[smotherb]

Shouldn't this be moved to the ridiculous forum?

[FredLee]

Thanks for the reply, and for clearing up the remark about thermodynamics, I thought you were saying that existence after physical death would violate one of the laws.

I quoted Hawking, using the same article you linked to and quoted from, to show that even brilliant people sometimes promote ideas that are not proven.

Additionally, I am not making any argument as to whether there is some sort of existence after physical death, or whether or not the universe just appeared on its own. Yes, mathematical constructs have been developed supporting the idea of a big bang or as it is sometimes called now, the big expansion, just as there are mathematical constructs showing nothing could escape from a black hole. I mention the black holes only to show that mathematical constructs are not always correct, as now Mr. Hawking affirms that matter can escape. I am only saying that one is as plausible as the other. The creation of the universe out of nothing defies all physical laws, and no number of mathematical constructs or particle accelerator experiments to date changes that. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen that way, it just means it is unproven, and at least for now, unprovable.

And yes, I do think the idea of existence after death magical, as well as the idea that the universe came into existence from nothing. I am not arguing that either or both are true or not, and compare them only to the extent they both seem magical to me. Just think about the creation of the universe. Out of nothingness, our entire universe came into being. Scientists say that there was a singularity that contained our entire universe. All the billions of galaxies, each with their own billions of stars, all energy, time, and even the empty space itself that are part of our universe was contained in this infinitely dense point in space that had zero volume, and for reasons unknown spontaneously expanded into our universe. No one knows how this singularity came to be in the first place, in fact it is unproven that it even existed at all, yet here we all are. Seems magical to me.

One final note: I try to stay away from religious beliefs when talking about the origins of the universe. I do like to try to make the point that both the scientific explanation and creationist explanation are equally plausible, or implausible if you prefer. Another point I try to bring up is that religious belief is not required to believe in life after death. I realize most religions promote the thought of life after death, but this should not preclude the non-religious from thinking their might be some scientific explanation for an existence after physical death.

Creationism is not debated by serious scientists anymore. I think that stopped a couple of hundred years ago maybe more.

One theory of creation is not as plausible as the other.

Life after death is a religious myth. I learned this in college 40 years ago and my father 100 years ago and his father 150 years ago.

Who talks about this stuff anymore? Not in any non religious institution of higher learning except as an example of folklore.

Please allow me to respond:

"Creationism is not debated by serious scientists anymore."

Of course it is, if for no other reason than to refute it. Don't take my word for it, do a google search.

"One theory of creation is not as plausible as the other."

Of the two theories I discussed, please explain which is more plausible.

"Life after death is a religious myth. I learned this in college 40 years ago and my father 100 years ago and his father 150 years ago."

It may very well be a myth, but I don't know, and neither do you. You have stated a belief, not a fact.

"Who talks about this stuff anymore?"

Lots of people. Again, do a google search.

[sirineou]

I had an NDE at the age of 15.

So for me there is no question about it.

Death is not the end, only a passage between 2 worlds.

Ohhh sure, near death experience, I have one of these in the BQE (Brooklyn Queens Express)every day.

but did you have a death experience and come back? near only counts on a game of horse shoes.

I'm just sharing my experience.

You don't have to believe me.

Anyway, I do believe inreincanation, but it seems all too convenient that people only reincarnate as people.

I am pretty sure animals do change species and therefore so do we, after all we are all animals.

I believe you. you had a NDE , but how does this provide you with information about death experience?

as it is I dont believe there is any one who died and came back to talk about it.

and everyone who has past life memories, seems to have being someone important , like Cleopatra, no one was ever a heroin junkie. Well I have news for them, there was only one Cleopatra, and only one of them could had being Cleopatra.

[kannot]

i believe in santa claus to

Dont worry it has the same credence as religion and people should respect your belief in Santa, not only that but they should allow your reindeer on all flights and if they dont you can take them to court for religious persecution.

[kannot]

I had an NDE at the age of 15.

So for me there is no question about it.

Death is not the end, only a passage between 2 worlds.

Ohhh sure, near death experience, I have one of these in the BQE (Brooklyn Queens Express)every day.

but did you have a death experience and come back? near only counts on a game of horse shoes.

I'm just sharing my experience.

You don't have to believe me.

Anyway, I do believe inreincanation, but it seems all too convenient that people only reincarnate as people.

I am pretty sure animals do change species and therefore so do we, after all we are all animals.

I believe you. you had a NDE , but how does this provide you with information about death experience?

as it is I dont believe there is any one who died and came back to talk about it.

and everyone who has past life memories, seems to have being someone important , like Cleopatra, no one was ever a heroin junkie. Well I have news for them, there was only one Cleopatra, and only one of them could had being Cleopatra.

Yep thats like saying I nearly shot myself in the foot but just missed................aim higher next time is my advice to him

[OmegaRacer]

When one makes fun out of something they don't understand, it says more about their ignorance than about the thing they try to ridicule.

[Kitsune]

I'm just sharing my experience.

You don't have to believe me.

Anyway, I do believe inreincanation, but it seems all too convenient that people only reincarnate as people.

I am pretty sure animals do change species and therefore so do we, after all we are all animals.

I believe you. you had a NDE , but how does this provide you with information about death experience?

as it is I dont believe there is any one who died and came back to talk about it. Or we do as child but it gets erased by childhood activities.

and everyone who has past life memories, seems to have being someone important , like Cleopatra, no one was ever a heroin junkie. Well I have news for them, there was only one Cleopatra, and only one of them could had being Cleopatra.

Because NDE is about leaving your body and visiting the other side for a short moment.

We come back all the time, but don't remember it.

Or we do as child,but it gets erased during childhood.

Some case of reincarnation are very compelling.

Not everyone with past life memories is somebody important.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Kitsune