Reincarnation - have you changed your mind?

[kannot]

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.

when some one embraces something they don't also understand. what does that say about them?

or do you understand reincarnation? if so please explain.

I never said I understand how it works, nor do I make fun of things I don't understand.

Do you embrace the teachings about string theory or the theory of relativity? You probably do, but what do you know about it? You have to take a leap of faith and trust those who you think know more about the subject.

What does that say about you?

Whats good about science is everything starts as a theory that can be scrapped and re thought out when/if proven wrong by others, whats good about gods word? nothing as " Thats it"

[sirineou]

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.

when some one embraces something they don't also understand. what does that say about them?

or do you understand reincarnation? if so please explain.

I never said I understand how it works, nor do I make fun of things I don't understand.

Do you embrace the teachings about string theory or the theory of relativity? You probably do, but what do you know about it? You have to take a leap of faith and trust those who you think know more about the subject.

What does that say about you?

I base my faith on evidence, and there are a lot of evidence to support all the Scientific theories, otherwise they would not be scientific theories ,

Whet do you base your beliefs on? evidence, or wishfully thinking?

because call it what you want, all this life after death and magic guy in the sky is nothing other than hubris and wishful thinking, .

Look at me I am so important the whole universe revolves around me, and unlike everything else, I will live for ever.

Bla bla bla,

get over your self.This is all there is, make the best of it now because there is no later.

I am sorry to be so blunt, I am sure you are probably a very nice man, not unlike all the other very nice religious, metaphysical people, but your thinking and assistance. provides the substrate that nurtures all the other nutcases that have being compromising my life for the past 56 years. and have stifled the human development through out history,

and frankly I am tired of it.

[Neeranam]

By happy coincidence I watched a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary last night , the subject was faith schools in the UK.

An Evangelical Christian Trust that runs 30 schools produces a Science textbook that states the following; ' Evolution is a theory without any scientific proof and its representation as fact is simply an atheist attempt to disprove God '

Anybody still care to argue that brainwashing young kids is not abuse ?

Evolution is only a theory.

They never did find the missing link did they?

Would telling the kids that there was a big bang that created the universe from nothing be abuse?

Telling kids that their great great great great x 1000 grandfather was a monkey be abuse?

Love your avatar - great advert for the big bang and evolution. What god would create a world with no life, and an animal that can't even pray to him?

Why does any god feel the need for anyone to pray to him??? is he lonely, then again so many gods eh?

You remind me of a quote I saw recently from Eckhart Tolle, a spiritual teacher.

“The word God has become empty of meaning through thousands of years of misuse... By misuse, I mean that people who have never glimpsed the realm of the sacred, the infinite vastness behind that word, use it with great conviction, as if they knew what they are talking about. Or they argue against it, as if they knew what it is they are denying. ”

[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.

when some one embraces something they don't also understand. what does that say about them?

or do you understand reincarnation? if so please explain.

I never said I understand how it works, nor do I make fun of things I don't understand.

Do you embrace the teachings about string theory or the theory of relativity? You probably do, but what do you know about it? You have to take a leap of faith and trust those who you think know more about the subject.

What does that say about you?

Whats good about science is everything starts as a theory that can be scrapped and re thought out when/if proven wrong by others, whats good about gods word? nothing as " Thats it"

I'm not religious, I don't follow any religion and I hate religious fanatics just like you.

Spiritual teachings can be examined through the practice of meditation.

Why don't you try it out and see for yourself?

[Neeranam]

Whats good about science is everything starts as a theory that can be scrapped and re thought out when/if proven wrong by others, whats good about gods word? nothing as " Thats it"

I'm not religious, I don't follow any religion and I hate religious fanatics just like you.

Spiritual teachings can be examined through the practice of meditation.

Why don't you try it out and see for yourself?

The Greatest Obstacle to Enlightenment

Enlightenment - what is that?

A beggar had been sitting by the side of a road for over thirty years. One day a stranger walked by. "Spare some change?" mumbled the beggar, mechanically holding out his old baseball cap. "I have nothing to give you," said the stranger. Then he asked: "What's that you are sitting on?" "Nothing," replied the beggar. "Just an old box. I have been sitting on it for as long as I can remember." "Ever looked inside?" asked the stranger. "No," said the beggar. "What's the point? There's nothing in there." "Have a look inside," insisted the stranger. The beggar managed to pry open the lid. With astonishment, disbelief, and elation, he saw that the box was filled with gold.

I am that stranger who has nothing to give you and who is telling you to look inside. Not inside any box, as in the parable, but somewhere even closer: inside yourself.

Continued here:

http://www.inner-growth.info/power_of_now_tolle/eckhart_tolle_chapter1.htm#1

Edited July 16, 2014 by Rooo
Copyright, fair use.

[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.

when some one embraces something they don't also understand. what does that say about them?

or do you understand reincarnation? if so please explain.

I never said I understand how it works, nor do I make fun of things I don't understand.

Do you embrace the teachings about string theory or the theory of relativity? You probably do, but what do you know about it? You have to take a leap of faith and trust those who you think know more about the subject.

What does that say about you?

I base my faith on evidence, and there are a lot of evidence to support all the Scientific theories, otherwise they would not be scientific theories ,

Whet do you base your beliefs on? evidence, or wishfully thinking?

because call it what you want, all this life after death and magic guy in the sky is nothing other than hubris and wishful thinking, .

Look at me I am so important the whole universe revolves around me, and unlike everything else, I will live for ever.

Bla bla bla,

get over your self.This is all there is, make the best of it now because there is no later.

I am sorry to be so blunt, I am sure you are probably a very nice man, not unlike all the other very nice religious, metaphysical people, but your thinking and assistance. provides the substrate that nurtures all the other nutcases that have being compromising my life for the past 56 years. and have stifled the human development through out history,

and frankly I am tired of it.

Fair enough. You have some personal issues with religious nutcases and I'm sorry that happened to you. I had my fair share of it, too.

My point was simply that there are plenty non-religious nutcases, it's not a prerogative of religion.

I base my believes on personal experiences and studies. If they don't conform with your or other poster's worldviews, so be it. I don't mind.

Everybody has his own learning curve and path to walk, no problem.

[daoyai]

Holy krap this thread has decended to the point of cut and pasting whole passages of E.Tolle can we sink lower? next I expect some Deepak and Oprah...

[Neeranam]

Holy krap this thread has decended to the point of cut and pasting whole passages of E.Tolle can we sink lower? next I expect some Deepak and Oprah...

Is anyone making you read it?

A bit too intellectual for you?

Stick to starting topics about whether the bars are open.

I've read some of Deepak's works - very wise man.

Oprah, although a pain in the arse, doe a lot of good work in trying to improve the world.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Neeranam

[opalred]

missing link? i see it every morning

[ChrisB87]

Jessuz...I think someone needs some more meditation and quiet contemplation.

[daoyai]

Holy krap this thread has decended to the point of cut and pasting whole passages of E.Tolle can we sink lower? next I expect some Deepak and Oprah...

Is anyone making you read it?

A bit too intellectual for you?

Stick to starting topics about whether the bars are open.

I've read some of Deepak's works - very wise man.

Oprah, although a pain in the arse, doe a lot of good work in trying to improve the world.

Actually the tract you posted was about the superiority of the anti-intellectual approach to existence. From your previous posts on this topic it seems you embrace that concept very well. Deepak is a marketing master, his lack of critical thinking is revealed in the debates he has had with Richard Dawkins. You are obviously a lightly educated wooist (your refence to a "missing link" in evolution speaks voumes) so you can be forgiven your frustrated personal attack, i don't start topics on bar openings....

[FredLee]

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.

1. No credible science teaches creationism as a reasonable cause of anything.

2. Billions are being spent to find details of the beginning of the universe (Higgs boson). 0 is being spent on detailing creationism.

3. Death is not a myth. Death is a fact. Death is not a belief. When you die you are dead. If you want to provide different information feel free to do so. But hurry up because now we are burying or burning dead people.

1. Don't know if your statement is accurate or not, but I never stated anything to the contrary.

2. There is no disagreement that a great deal of money is spent to find details of the beginning of the universe, and I think it is money well spent. I would dispute that 0 is being spent on detailing creationism. I suspect that churches and other religious institutions spend quite a bit on just that. I assume this is in response to my request that you explain which of the two theories of creation I discussed was more plausible. Is the determining factor of plausibility the amount of money spent trying to prove it is true? If not, please explain why one is more plausible than the other.

3. I never said death was a myth. You made the declarative statement that life after death was a myth. I agreed that it may very well be, but that is a belief, not a statement of fact.

I am not trying to have an argument with anyone. The only reason I brought up the creation of the universe in this thread was to point out that with so much unknown about our existence how can we say definitively that there is no existence after physical death. We see a magician make a dove appear out of nowhere. We know this is just an illusion, because it is impossible to create a dove out of nothing. But many of us accept that the entire universe was created out of nothing, whether spontaneously or by a supernatural creator. Gravity was mentioned previously. Yes there is gravity, and we know what it does, but we don't know why. We don't even know why time exists, and there is even dispute that it only goes in one direction. Many scientists support the idea of parallel universes, and some even say there are different times in each universe. Perhaps we continue our existence in one of those universes. As I stated before, I don't know the answers, but I do enjoy thinking about the questions, and discovering others viewpoints.

Edited July 16, 2014 by FredLee

[thailiketoo]

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.

1. No credible science teaches creationism as a reasonable cause of anything.

2. Billions are being spent to find details of the beginning of the universe (Higgs boson). 0 is being spent on detailing creationism.

3. Death is not a myth. Death is a fact. Death is not a belief. When you die you are dead. If you want to provide different information feel free to do so. But hurry up because now we are burying or burning dead people.

1. Don't know if your statement is accurate or not, but I never stated anything to the contrary.

2. There is no disagreement that a great deal of money is spent to find details of the beginning of the universe, and I think it is money well spent. I would dispute that 0 is being spent on detailing creationism. I suspect that churches and other religious institutions spend quite a bit on just that. I assume this is in response to my request that you explain which of the two theories of creation I discussed was more plausible. Is the determining factor of plausibility the amount of money spent trying to prove it is true? If not, please explain why one is more plausible than the other.

3. I never said death was a myth. You made the declarative statement that life after death was a myth. I agreed that it may very well be, but that is a belief, not a statement of fact.

I am not trying to have an argument with anyone. The only reason I brought up the creation of the universe in this thread was to point out that with so much unknown about our existence how can we say definitively that there is no existence after physical death. We see a magician make a dove appear out of nowhere. We know this is just an illusion, because it is impossible to create a dove out of nothing. But many of us accept that the entire universe was created out of nothing, whether spontaneously or by a supernatural creator. Gravity was mentioned previously. Yes there is gravity, and we know what it does, but we don't know why. We don't even know why time exists, and there is even dispute that it only goes in one direction. Many scientists support the idea of parallel universes, and some even say there are different times in each universe. Perhaps we continue our existence in one of those universes. As I stated before, I don't know the answers, but I do enjoy thinking about the questions, and discovering others viewpoints.

Life after death is a fairy tale, myth or any thing else you want to call something made up. There is no life after death and that is a fact until someone proves otherwise. I didn't kill cock robin and that's a fact until you prove otherwise.

An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.

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

Edited July 16, 2014 by thailiketoo

[kannot]

Whats good about science is everything starts as a theory that can be scrapped and re thought out when/if proven wrong by others, whats good about gods word? nothing as " Thats it"

I'm not religious, I don't follow any religion and I hate religious fanatics just like you.

Spiritual teachings can be examined through the practice of meditation.

Why don't you try it out and see for yourself?

The Greatest Obstacle to Enlightenment

Enlightenment - what is that?

A beggar had been sitting by the side of a road for over thirty years. One day a stranger walked by. "Spare some change?" mumbled the beggar, mechanically holding out his old baseball cap. "I have nothing to give you," said the stranger. Then he asked: "What's that you are sitting on?" "Nothing," replied the beggar. "Just an old box. I have been sitting on it for as long as I can remember." "Ever looked inside?" asked the stranger. "No," said the beggar. "What's the point? There's nothing in there." "Have a look inside," insisted the stranger. The beggar managed to pry open the lid. With astonishment, disbelief, and elation, he saw that the box was filled with gold.

I am that stranger who has nothing to give you and who is telling you to look inside. Not inside any box, as in the parable, but somewhere even closer: inside yourself.

Continued here:

http://www.inner-growth.info/power_of_now_tolle/eckhart_tolle_chapter1.htm#1

The results of not thinking are road deaths and living in the stone age as thats where we'd be..............but youd be happy with that eh? I mean lets say you make it to 40 in the stone age youd be doing well, never mind you can come back again and again.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Rooo
Copyright, fair use.

[OmegaRacer]

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.

1. No credible science teaches creationism as a reasonable cause of anything.

2. Billions are being spent to find details of the beginning of the universe (Higgs boson). 0 is being spent on detailing creationism.

3. Death is not a myth. Death is a fact. Death is not a belief. When you die you are dead. If you want to provide different information feel free to do so. But hurry up because now we are burying or burning dead people.

1. Don't know if your statement is accurate or not, but I never stated anything to the contrary.

2. There is no disagreement that a great deal of money is spent to find details of the beginning of the universe, and I think it is money well spent. I would dispute that 0 is being spent on detailing creationism. I suspect that churches and other religious institutions spend quite a bit on just that. I assume this is in response to my request that you explain which of the two theories of creation I discussed was more plausible. Is the determining factor of plausibility the amount of money spent trying to prove it is true? If not, please explain why one is more plausible than the other.

3. I never said death was a myth. You made the declarative statement that life after death was a myth. I agreed that it may very well be, but that is a belief, not a statement of fact.

I am not trying to have an argument with anyone. The only reason I brought up the creation of the universe in this thread was to point out that with so much unknown about our existence how can we say definitively that there is no existence after physical death. We see a magician make a dove appear out of nowhere. We know this is just an illusion, because it is impossible to create a dove out of nothing. But many of us accept that the entire universe was created out of nothing, whether spontaneously or by a supernatural creator. Gravity was mentioned previously. Yes there is gravity, and we know what it does, but we don't know why. We don't even know why time exists, and there is even dispute that it only goes in one direction. Many scientists support the idea of parallel universes, and some even say there are different times in each universe. Perhaps we continue our existence in one of those universes. As I stated before, I don't know the answers, but I do enjoy thinking about the questions, and discovering others viewpoints.

Life after death is a fairy tale, myth or any thing else you want to call something made up. There is no life after death and that is a fact until someone proves otherwise. I didn't kill cock robin and that's a fact until you prove otherwise.

An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.

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

I think you're a bit confused.

Nobody has proven that there's nothing after death, therefore it's not a fact. Nobody knows for sure, but chose to believe or not to believe in it.

Based on your wiki quote your statement is just another argument from ignorance.

[thailiketoo]

I think you're a bit confused.

Nobody has proven that there's nothing after death, therefore it's not a fact. Nobody knows for sure, but chose to believe or not to believe in it.

Based on your wiki quote your statement is just another argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

[Neeranam]

Whats good about science is everything starts as a theory that can be scrapped and re thought out when/if proven wrong by others, whats good about gods word? nothing as " Thats it"

I'm not religious, I don't follow any religion and I hate religious fanatics just like you.

Spiritual teachings can be examined through the practice of meditation.

Why don't you try it out and see for yourself?

The Greatest Obstacle to Enlightenment

Enlightenment - what is that?

A beggar had been sitting by the side of a road for over thirty years. One day a stranger walked by. "Spare some change?" mumbled the beggar, mechanically holding out his old baseball cap. "I have nothing to give you," said the stranger. Then he asked: "What's that you are sitting on?" "Nothing," replied the beggar. "Just an old box. I have been sitting on it for as long as I can remember." "Ever looked inside?" asked the stranger. "No," said the beggar. "What's the point? There's nothing in there." "Have a look inside," insisted the stranger. The beggar managed to pry open the lid. With astonishment, disbelief, and elation, he saw that the box was filled with gold.

I am that stranger who has nothing to give you and who is telling you to look inside. Not inside any box, as in the parable, but somewhere even closer: inside yourself.

Continued here:

http://www.inner-growth.info/power_of_now_tolle/eckhart_tolle_chapter1.htm#1

The results of not thinking are road deaths and living in the stone age as thats where we'd be..............but youd be happy with that eh? I mean lets say you make it to 40 in the stone age youd be doing well, never mind you can come back again and again.

Look within brother you dont have to be that beggar.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Rooo
Copyright, fair use.

[thailiketoo]

I'm not religious, I don't follow any religion and I hate religious fanatics just like you.

Spiritual teachings can be examined through the practice of meditation.

Why don't you try it out and see for yourself?

The Greatest Obstacle to Enlightenment

Enlightenment - what is that?

A beggar had been sitting by the side of a road for over thirty years. One day a stranger walked by. "Spare some change?" mumbled the beggar, mechanically holding out his old baseball cap. "I have nothing to give you," said the stranger. Then he asked: "What's that you are sitting on?" "Nothing," replied the beggar. "Just an old box. I have been sitting on it for as long as I can remember." "Ever looked inside?" asked the stranger. "No," said the beggar. "What's the point? There's nothing in there." "Have a look inside," insisted the stranger. The beggar managed to pry open the lid. With astonishment, disbelief, and elation, he saw that the box was filled with gold.

I am that stranger who has nothing to give you and who is telling you to look inside. Not inside any box, as in the parable, but somewhere even closer: inside yourself.

Continued Here:

http://www.inner-growth.info/power_of_now_tolle/eckhart_tolle_chapter1.htm#1

The results of not thinking are road deaths and living in the stone age as thats where we'd be..............but youd be happy with that eh? I mean lets say you make it to 40 in the stone age youd be doing well, never mind you can come back again and again.

Look within brother you dont have to be that beggar.

Might be time to look within the TV posting rules something about three sentences and link the rest.

Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Rooo
Copyright, fair use.

[kannot]

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.

1. No credible science teaches creationism as a reasonable cause of anything.

2. Billions are being spent to find details of the beginning of the universe (Higgs boson). 0 is being spent on detailing creationism.

3. Death is not a myth. Death is a fact. Death is not a belief. When you die you are dead. If you want to provide different information feel free to do so. But hurry up because now we are burying or burning dead people.

1. Don't know if your statement is accurate or not, but I never stated anything to the contrary.

2. There is no disagreement that a great deal of money is spent to find details of the beginning of the universe, and I think it is money well spent. I would dispute that 0 is being spent on detailing creationism. I suspect that churches and other religious institutions spend quite a bit on just that. I assume this is in response to my request that you explain which of the two theories of creation I discussed was more plausible. Is the determining factor of plausibility the amount of money spent trying to prove it is true? If not, please explain why one is more plausible than the other.

3. I never said death was a myth. You made the declarative statement that life after death was a myth. I agreed that it may very well be, but that is a belief, not a statement of fact.

I am not trying to have an argument with anyone. The only reason I brought up the creation of the universe in this thread was to point out that with so much unknown about our existence how can we say definitively that there is no existence after physical death. We see a magician make a dove appear out of nowhere. We know this is just an illusion, because it is impossible to create a dove out of nothing. But many of us accept that the entire universe was created out of nothing, whether spontaneously or by a supernatural creator. Gravity was mentioned previously. Yes there is gravity, and we know what it does, but we don't know why. We don't even know why time exists, and there is even dispute that it only goes in one direction. Many scientists support the idea of parallel universes, and some even say there are different times in each universe. Perhaps we continue our existence in one of those universes. As I stated before, I don't know the answers, but I do enjoy thinking about the questions, and discovering others viewpoints.

Life after death is a fairy tale, myth or any thing else you want to call something made up. There is no life after death and that is a fact until someone proves otherwise. I didn't kill cock robin and that's a fact until you prove otherwise.

An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.

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

I think you're a bit confused.

Nobody has proven that there's nothing after death, therefore it's not a fact. Nobody knows for sure, but chose to believe or not to believe in it.

Based on your wiki quote your statement is just another argument from ignorance.

Nobody has proven there isnt a peanut called Gerald a kazzillion light years form here either...............sorry to Gerald if hes looking in

[FredLee]

1. No credible science teaches creationism as a reasonable cause of anything.

2. Billions are being spent to find details of the beginning of the universe (Higgs boson). 0 is being spent on detailing creationism.

3. Death is not a myth. Death is a fact. Death is not a belief. When you die you are dead. If you want to provide different information feel free to do so. But hurry up because now we are burying or burning dead people.

1. Don't know if your statement is accurate or not, but I never stated anything to the contrary.

2. There is no disagreement that a great deal of money is spent to find details of the beginning of the universe, and I think it is money well spent. I would dispute that 0 is being spent on detailing creationism. I suspect that churches and other religious institutions spend quite a bit on just that. I assume this is in response to my request that you explain which of the two theories of creation I discussed was more plausible. Is the determining factor of plausibility the amount of money spent trying to prove it is true? If not, please explain why one is more plausible than the other.

3. I never said death was a myth. You made the declarative statement that life after death was a myth. I agreed that it may very well be, but that is a belief, not a statement of fact.

I am not trying to have an argument with anyone. The only reason I brought up the creation of the universe in this thread was to point out that with so much unknown about our existence how can we say definitively that there is no existence after physical death. We see a magician make a dove appear out of nowhere. We know this is just an illusion, because it is impossible to create a dove out of nothing. But many of us accept that the entire universe was created out of nothing, whether spontaneously or by a supernatural creator. Gravity was mentioned previously. Yes there is gravity, and we know what it does, but we don't know why. We don't even know why time exists, and there is even dispute that it only goes in one direction. Many scientists support the idea of parallel universes, and some even say there are different times in each universe. Perhaps we continue our existence in one of those universes. As I stated before, I don't know the answers, but I do enjoy thinking about the questions, and discovering others viewpoints.

Life after death is a fairy tale, myth or any thing else you want to call something made up. There is no life after death and that is a fact until someone proves otherwise. I didn't kill cock robin and that's a fact until you prove otherwise.

An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.

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

So your stated proposition that life after death is assumed to be false because it has not yet proven to be true is an argument from ignorance?

[Neeranam]

One thing I am often guilty of is wanting to be right rather than happy.

I wonder how many scientific non believers are happy.How many stoic philosophers, many of which believed in carnation,were happy.

The turning point for me was reading the yoga sutras of Patanjali.

[kannot]

One thing I am often guilty of is wanting to be right rather than happy.

I wonder how many scientific non believers are happy.How many stoic philosophers, many of which believed in carnation,were happy.

The turning point for me was reading the yoga sutras of Patanjali.

Huh Happiness who needs it, Im just content 99% of the time I dont allude to be permanently happy at any time.or have the need to be, life is just that.

Edited July 16, 2014 by kannot

[thailiketoo]

1. No credible science teaches creationism as a reasonable cause of anything.

2. Billions are being spent to find details of the beginning of the universe (Higgs boson). 0 is being spent on detailing creationism.

3. Death is not a myth. Death is a fact. Death is not a belief. When you die you are dead. If you want to provide different information feel free to do so. But hurry up because now we are burying or burning dead people.

1. Don't know if your statement is accurate or not, but I never stated anything to the contrary.

2. There is no disagreement that a great deal of money is spent to find details of the beginning of the universe, and I think it is money well spent. I would dispute that 0 is being spent on detailing creationism. I suspect that churches and other religious institutions spend quite a bit on just that. I assume this is in response to my request that you explain which of the two theories of creation I discussed was more plausible. Is the determining factor of plausibility the amount of money spent trying to prove it is true? If not, please explain why one is more plausible than the other.

3. I never said death was a myth. You made the declarative statement that life after death was a myth. I agreed that it may very well be, but that is a belief, not a statement of fact.

I am not trying to have an argument with anyone. The only reason I brought up the creation of the universe in this thread was to point out that with so much unknown about our existence how can we say definitively that there is no existence after physical death. We see a magician make a dove appear out of nowhere. We know this is just an illusion, because it is impossible to create a dove out of nothing. But many of us accept that the entire universe was created out of nothing, whether spontaneously or by a supernatural creator. Gravity was mentioned previously. Yes there is gravity, and we know what it does, but we don't know why. We don't even know why time exists, and there is even dispute that it only goes in one direction. Many scientists support the idea of parallel universes, and some even say there are different times in each universe. Perhaps we continue our existence in one of those universes. As I stated before, I don't know the answers, but I do enjoy thinking about the questions, and discovering others viewpoints.

Life after death is a fairy tale, myth or any thing else you want to call something made up. There is no life after death and that is a fact until someone proves otherwise. I didn't kill cock robin and that's a fact until you prove otherwise.

An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.

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

So your stated proposition that life after death is assumed to be false because it has not yet proven to be true is an argument from ignorance?

I think it is very clear in the above example. You wrote, "I am not trying to have an argument with anyone." Sorry but I think you are. If you really do not understand the principle of argument from ignorance there's not much I can do.

You may want to read, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot"

All of these arguments are 60 or more years old. Anyone attending a university since then would not ask the questions you are asking because they were decided long ago.

[FredLee]

Life after death is a fairy tale, myth or any thing else you want to call something made up. There is no life after death and that is a fact until someone proves otherwise. I didn't kill cock robin and that's a fact until you prove otherwise.

An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.

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

So your stated proposition that life after death is assumed to be false because it has not yet proven to be true is an argument from ignorance?

I think it is very clear in the above example. You wrote, "I am not trying to have an argument with anyone." Sorry but I think you are. If you really do not understand the principle of argument from ignorance there's not much I can do.

You may want to read, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot"

All of these arguments are 60 or more years old. Anyone attending a university since then would not ask the questions you are asking because they were decided long ago.

I understand it very well. Your statement from above: " There is no life after death, and that is a fact until someone proves otherwise."

From your quote on the argument from ignorance: "An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false OR a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.

You assert that the proposition that there is life after death is assumed false ("There is no life after death") because it has not yet been proven true ("until someone proves otherwise.").

I think that is pretty straightforward, not much room for misunderstanding.

Before you jump off on some other tangent, please recall that I have not said that life after death is a fact. I have stated more than once that I don't know if there is any existence after physical death, but that as strange as our universe is I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility. I did however dispute your earlier claim that it is a myth by stating that is your belief, not a fact, just as my thought that it can't be ruled out is my belief, not a fact.

[joecoolfrog]

Fred

Are you not aware that Myth has not one but two common definitions , its usage is not always indicative of it being proven false.

[thailiketoo]

Life after death is a fairy tale, myth or any thing else you want to call something made up. There is no life after death and that is a fact until someone proves otherwise. I didn't kill cock robin and that's a fact until you prove otherwise.

An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.

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

So your stated proposition that life after death is assumed to be false because it has not yet proven to be true is an argument from ignorance?

I think it is very clear in the above example. You wrote, "I am not trying to have an argument with anyone." Sorry but I think you are. If you really do not understand the principle of argument from ignorance there's not much I can do.

You may want to read, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot"

All of these arguments are 60 or more years old. Anyone attending a university since then would not ask the questions you are asking because they were decided long ago.

I understand it very well. Your statement from above: " There is no life after death, and that is a fact until someone proves otherwise."

From your quote on the argument from ignorance: "An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false OR a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.

You assert that the proposition that there is life after death is assumed false ("There is no life after death") because it has not yet been proven true ("until someone proves otherwise.").

I think that is pretty straightforward, not much room for misunderstanding.

Before you jump off on some other tangent, please recall that I have not said that life after death is a fact. I have stated more than once that I don't know if there is any existence after physical death, but that as strange as our universe is I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility. I did however dispute your earlier claim that it is a myth by stating that is your belief, not a fact, just as my thought that it can't be ruled out is my belief, not a fact.

Life after death is not reasonable. It is ignorant. It is the same as Russell's teapot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Your belief can and has been ruled out. You speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake.

For further discussion of why it and you are wrong read the link. You have been proved wrong over and over again and any educated person is aware of this.

[tartempion]

World population year 1800 was 1 billion, year 1500 approx 500 million, year AD 0 maybe 100 million.

So who's incarnated into what in to days world with 7 billion humans???

[submaniac]

"But there's no proof of an afterlife or reincarnation!" Yes there is, but nonbelievers choose to ignore it. There's a whole lot of people who have claimed to have experienced an afterlife or reincarnation. "But that's not proof." Well there's a whole lot of people who are swearing it happened that are neither mental cases, on drugs, or have any reason to lie about it. Here's a story from a E.R. doctor who died and tells his story: http://www.nbcchicago.com/on-air/as-seen-on/A-Doctor--186331791.html Ths guy has no reason to lie.

I know one of my best friends who graduated from Stanford University (B.S.) and Yale (M.D.) and is an emergency room physician who is a "believer". I actually know alot of people in the medical profession, either personally or they are blood family members. I cannot think of one doctor or nurse I have ever met who is an atheist. Those that are in a filed of medicine where they are around death alot seem to be the strongest believers.

And despite the fact that the biggest argument against an afterlife are based on claims of "science", the fact is science really has no idea how the universe actually works. Here's an interesting article for you: http://www.netplaces.com/evidence-of-the-afterlife/can-quantum-physics-offer-proof-of-the-afterlife/

[cobra]

World population year 1800 was 1 billion, year 1500 approx 500 million, year AD 0 maybe 100 million.

So who's incarnated into what in to days world with 7 billion humans???

Agree,

the math doesn't work out.

[thailiketoo]

"But there's no proof of an afterlife or reincarnation!" Yes there is, but nonbelievers choose to ignore it. There's a whole lot of people who have claimed to have experienced an afterlife or reincarnation. "But that's not proof." Well there's a whole lot of people who are swearing it happened that are neither mental cases, on drugs, or have any reason to lie about it. Here's a story from a E.R. doctor who died and tells his story: http://www.nbcchicago.com/on-air/as-seen-on/A-Doctor--186331791.html Ths guy has no reason to lie.

I know one of my best friends who graduated from Stanford University (B.S.) and Yale (M.D.) and is an emergency room physician who is a "believer". I actually know alot of people in the medical profession, either personally or they are blood family members. I cannot think of one doctor or nurse I have ever met who is an atheist. Those that are in a filed of medicine where they are around death alot seem to be the strongest believers.

And despite the fact that the biggest argument against an afterlife are based on claims of "science", the fact is science really has no idea how the universe actually works. Here's an interesting article for you: http://www.netplaces.com/evidence-of-the-afterlife/can-quantum-physics-offer-proof-of-the-afterlife/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490160/ 

I try to make sense of the situation and decide what to do without relying on God. 61% US doctors.

Belief in life after death. 59% US doctors.

You wrote, "the fact is science really has no idea how the universe actually works." A no. What that means is you are not educated either formally or informally.

How the Universe Works is a mini-series that originally aired on the Discovery Channel April 25, 2010 to May 24, 2010. The first and third seasons were narrated by Mike Rowe^[1] and the second by Erik Todd Dellums.^[2] It was released on Blu-ray on February 28, 2012.^[3] The second season of the show moved to The Science Channel, consisting of 8 episodes. The second season aired between July 11, 2012 and August 29, 2012.^[4] The third season started on July 9, 2014.

1 "Big Bang" Louise V. Say April 25, 2010 2 "Black Holes" Peter Chinn May 2, 2010 3 "Alien Galaxies" Louise V. Say May 10, 2010 4 "Extreme Stars" Peter Chinn May 10, 2010 5 "Supernovas" Shaun Trevisick May 17, 2010 6 "Extreme Planets" Lorne Townend May 17, 2010 7 "Alien Solar Systems" Lorne Townend May 24, 2010 8 "Alien Moons" Shaun Trevisick May 24, 2010