Reincarnation - have you changed your mind?

[submaniac]

. What that means is you are not educated either formally or informally.

Well my bachelors degree was from Stanford (which is where I went to school with my friend who is an ER doctor) with a professional degree from UCLA. And you?

And a quote from your article (which I am trying to keep within fair use copyrights by quoting only two sentences)::"Fifty-five percent of physicians say their religious beliefs influence their practice of medicine. Compared with the general population, physicians are more likely to be affiliated with religions that are underrepresented in the United States, less likely to say they try to carry their religious beliefs over into all other dealings in life (58% vs 73%), twice as likely to consider themselves spiritual but not religious (20% vs 9%), and twice as likely to cope with major problems in life without relying on God (61% vs 29%)

In the U.S. to be a physician requires a 4 years bachelor's degree, 3 years of medical school, plus at least 3 years residency. The undergraduate prerequisite stresses hard core science. And yet for the most educated and most scientifically oriented people in the country, the majority are religious believers. Funny how that works.

And funny how you resort to personal insults when you disagree with someone.

Edited July 17, 2014 by submaniac

[daoyai]

"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/

You are correct that there are many claims of such experiences but no evidence at all. I read your first link and watched the vid, the most logical conclusion is dreamstate as the patient was not dead and was also (I assume) shocked with electricity to restart his heart so the neurons in the brain were stimulated or at least active. The second link is just a comedy website.

Edited July 17, 2014 by daoyai

[thailiketoo]

. What that means is you are not educated either formally or informally.

Well my bachelors degree was from Stanford (which is where I went to school with my friend who is an ER doctor) with a professional degree from UCLA. And you?

And a quote from your article (which I am trying to keep within fair use copyrights by quoting only two sentences)::"Fifty-five percent of physicians say their religious beliefs influence their practice of medicine. Compared with the general population, physicians are more likely to be affiliated with religions that are underrepresented in the United States, less likely to say they try to carry their religious beliefs over into all other dealings in life (58% vs 73%), twice as likely to consider themselves spiritual but not religious (20% vs 9%), and twice as likely to cope with major problems in life without relying on God (61% vs 29%)

In the U.S. to be a physician requires a 4 years bachelor's degree, 3 years of medical school, plus at least 3 years residency. The undergraduate prerequisite stresses hard core science. And yet for the most educated and most scientifically oriented people in the country, the majority are religious believers. Funny how that works.

And funny how you resort to personal insults when you disagree with someone.

What insult? There are many well respected universities in the world including Notre Dame that turn out people who are uneducated about celestial mechanics, the origin of the species and many other things. Most doctors I know are woefully uneducated about dietetics.

Why the majority of doctors in the USA believe in an afterlife? I have no idea. I can only guess it is because they have not been presented with the facts in a rigorous manner (education).

[submaniac]

For Daoyai:

Well what I am trying to say is that there are people who are logical, educated, intelligent, with no reason to lie. If you say "there's no evidence", that really is not correct. This IS evidence, but may not be evidence to support the degree of proof that some people require. If it were a criminal trial and you and you had an educated, not insane, intelligent person testify in court "Yes, this is the man who robbed the bank. I witnessed it. I experienced the robbery." Would this not be 'evidence'. So the same evidence that is credible enough to sentence someone to prison is not credible enough for someone to believe to support the existence of God?

And yet things less credible in the scientific realm are not accepted as true. For example, dark matter. It is generally accepted to exist to explain the expansion of the universe, but yet no one has yet discovered proof of its existence. For decades people have been the existence of the Higgs-Bosom "God particle" but credible proof of its existence only has come up in 2012.

For Thailiketoo:

I was referring to the "What that means is you are not educated either formally or informally." part.

Edited July 17, 2014 by submaniac

[thailiketoo]

I was referring to the "What that means is you are not educated either formally or informally." part.

Funny that. No insult intended. I would have thought that Stanford and/or UCLA would have taught you enough critical thinking skills to determine that life after death was folklore rather than science. I guess US education has more in common with Thailand than we think.

Edited July 17, 2014 by thailiketoo

[submaniac]

This is not an either or situation. You don't have to be educated and intelligent OR have religious beliefs. Your own article shows that for the most educated profession in the United States and the world, the majority have religious beliefs. In my previous post on this subject I wrote about Renae Descartes theorem proof for the existence of God. And I would not consider Descartes a fool. What religion is right, how exactly the universe works, I don't know. I am a shackled prisoner looking at shadows on a cave wall. (Plato.) "Stanford and/or UCLA would have you enough critical thinking skills"...Response: took alot of philosophy and have been getting into Buddhist thought as of late. That's where my perspective comes from.

[thailiketoo]

This is not an either or situation. You don't have to be educated and intelligent OR have religious beliefs. Your own article shows that for the most educated profession in the United States and the world, the majority have religious beliefs. In my previous post on this subject I wrote about Renae Descartes theorem proof for the existence of God. And I would not consider Descartes a fool. What religion is right, how exactly the universe works, I don't know. I am a shackled prisoner looking at shadows on a cave wall. (Plato.) "Stanford and/or UCLA would have you enough critical thinking skills"...Response: took alot of philosophy and have been getting into Buddhist thought as of late. That's where my perspective comes from.

You wrote, " I am a shackled prisoner looking at shadows on a cave wall." That is understandable when looking at modern science and how the universe works you quote philosophers who died in the 1600's.

May I suggest you upgrade your education. When talking about classics quote classical and when talking about modern quote modern. Science has the capability to determine the existence of an afterlife and/or reincarnation.

There is not afterlife or reincarnation and people who think there is are ignorant.

ig·no·rant

ˈignərənt/

adjective

adjective: ignorant

Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

No insult intended. Ignorant is a word not an insult.

If I sent my child to a university that allowed the teaching about an afterlife or reincarnation or the Easter bunny as real, I would change schools.

Edited July 17, 2014 by thailiketoo

[Humberstone]

This is not an either or situation. You don't have to be educated and intelligent OR have religious beliefs. Your own article shows that for the most educated profession in the United States and the world, the majority have religious beliefs. In my previous post on this subject I wrote about Renae Descartes theorem proof for the existence of God. And I would not consider Descartes a fool. What religion is right, how exactly the universe works, I don't know. I am a shackled prisoner looking at shadows on a cave wall. (Plato.) "Stanford and/or UCLA would have you enough critical thinking skills"...Response: took alot of philosophy and have been getting into Buddhist thought as of late. That's where my perspective comes from.

Don't you mean Blaise Pascal and 'Pascal's Wager' rather than Descartes ?

[submaniac]

Don't you mean Blaise Pascal and 'Pascal's Wager' rather than Descartes ?

No, I mean Renae Descartes theorem proving the existence of God.

http://philosophy.about.com/od/Philosophical-Theories-Ideas/a/Descartess-Proofs-Of-Gods-Existence.htm

If I sent my child to a university that allowed the teaching about an afterlife or reincarnation or the Easter bunny as real, I would change schools.

Then you would find your child excluded from every college and university in the Western world. Every school requires study of philosophy to one extent or another. Plato's Republic (allegory of the cave) is pretty much required reading everywhere.

Science has the capability to determine the existence of an afterlife and/or reincarnation.

No it doesn't. Science cannot explain why the universe is still expanding (hence dark matter, which apparently there must be alot of in the universe to account for expansion, and yet no one has been able to actually find).

And science does not have a rationale explanation for the phenomenon of how the behavior of sub atomic particles change dependent on whether they are being observed by human beings. Look up the "double slit experiment". It's rather freaky.

Look up "string theory: and see how the scientific consensus is that there are actually 11 dimensions to our universe.

So why does the universe expand when our mathematics show that the mass in the universe should be contracting? So why do sub atomic particles behave differently depending on whether they are being observed? And why is that the the mathematical equations on string theory work when the equations take into account 11 different dimensions that we cannot perceive? Simple answer: God. Why? Because science does not have a better explanation either.

[thailiketoo]

If I sent my child to a university that allowed the teaching about an afterlife or reincarnation or the Easter bunny as real, I would change schools.

Then you would find your child excluded from every college and university in the Western world. Every school requires study of philosophy to one extent or another. Plato's Republic (allegory of the cave) is pretty much required reading everywhere.

Nonsense. No reputable university teaches an afterlife, reincarnation and/or the Easter bunny as real.

You need to make a distinction between religion/folklore and natural science.

Edited July 17, 2014 by thailiketoo

[thailiketoo]

Science has the capability to determine the existence of an afterlife and/or reincarnation.

No it doesn't. Science cannot explain why the universe is still expanding (hence dark matter, which apparently there must be alot of in the universe to account for expansion, and yet no one has been able to actually find).

And science does not have a rationale explanation for the phenomenon of how the behavior of sub atomic particles change dependent on whether they are being observed by human beings. Look up the "double slit experiment". It's rather freaky.

Look up "string theory: and see how the scientific consensus is that there are actually 11 dimensions to our universe.

So why does the universe expand when our mathematics show that the mass in the universe should be contracting? So why do sub atomic particles behave differently depending on whether they are being observed? And why is that the the mathematical equations on string theory work when the equations take into account 11 different dimensions that we cannot perceive? Simple answer: God. Why? Because science does not have a better explanation either.

How did we go from nothing to something? Specifically, how did we go from particles with no mass to particles that have mass? Higgs bosons. Higgs bosons help elementary particles gain mass.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/allenstjohn/2012/07/09/the-higgs-boson-what-you-should-know-about-what-it-is-and-what-it-does/2/

[submaniac]

Higgs Bosons? You mean the "God Particle"??? Those Higgs Bosons?

[thailiketoo]

Higgs Bosons? You mean the "God Particle"??? Those Higgs Bosons?

Click the link and educate yourself.

http://www.forbes.co...what-it-does/2/

[partington]

Don't you mean Blaise Pascal and 'Pascal's Wager' rather than Descartes ?

No, I mean Renae Descartes theorem proving the existence of God.

http://philosophy.about.com/od/Philosophical-Theories-Ideas/a/Descartess-Proofs-Of-Gods-Existence.htm

If I sent my child to a university that allowed the teaching about an afterlife or reincarnation or the Easter bunny as real, I would change schools.

Then you would find your child excluded from every college and university in the Western world. Every school requires study of philosophy to one extent or another. Plato's Republic (allegory of the cave) is pretty much required reading everywhere.

Science has the capability to determine the existence of an afterlife and/or reincarnation.

No it doesn't. Science cannot explain why the universe is still expanding (hence dark matter, which apparently there must be alot of in the universe to account for expansion, and yet no one has been able to actually find).

And science does not have a rationale explanation for the phenomenon of how the behavior of sub atomic particles change dependent on whether they are being observed by human beings. Look up the "double slit experiment". It's rather freaky.

Look up "string theory: and see how the scientific consensus is that there are actually 11 dimensions to our universe.

So why does the universe expand when our mathematics show that the mass in the universe should be contracting? So why do sub atomic particles behave differently depending on whether they are being observed? And why is that the the mathematical equations on string theory work when the equations take into account 11 different dimensions that we cannot perceive? Simple answer: God. Why? Because science does not have a better explanation either.

While I have no agreement that afterlives and reincarnation have been 'disproved' by science - they haven't- it is very clear that science suggests, based on observation and picking the most (rather than the least!) likely conclusion from those observations, that the default postion must be: consciousness after death is so unlikely that claims to the contrary require very significant observations or evidence to be credible.

If every attribute of human consciousness can be affected by damage or alteration to the brain - the ability to form memories, the evoking of specific memories or sense experiences by electrical stimulation of individual brain areas, the ability to recognise your children, the ability to make moral judgements, the experience of consciousness itself , the ability to be human which is removed by Alzheimer's - then it takes a great deal of stretching to believe that any of the things essential to consciousness can still occur when a brain is rotted away. If encephalitis can destroy the entire memory of who a person is, while leaving most of their brain intact, what memories will no brain have?

I am aware that arguments can be made, and usually are, against this view, but they are arguments that are more unlikely and for which no evidence at all exists, other than wishful thinking.

For example: "the brain is a radio picking up the soul from wherever it's hanging out and transmitting its workings". However if I reached into a radio playing "Hotel California" and pulled out a few transistors, and the tune of "Hotel California" changed to that of " Happy Birthday" and the lyrics to "Hotel Louisiana", few people would interpret that to mean anything other than the music comes from the workings of the radio itself, and not from somewhere outside. This is exactly what happens when you interfere with the brain itself - it changes the nature of the thoughts within it. So there is evidence for this view, and none for the other interpretation.

Also I am really amazed at the use of science by science sceptics. If you do not believe that science can take on and answer these questions, why do you quote scientific thinking about quantum theory and so on to support your position? Either you believe in the scientific method or you don't. You can't quote science as a basis for saying your views are likely, while simultaneously believing science can't explain them.

When you say

"So why does the universe expand when our mathematics show that the mass in the universe should be contracting?"

you must know that the knowledge that the universe is expanding, and any mathematical model of why it is or isn't are both pieces of information derived from science. Any explanation for the expansion of the universe will be based on doing more science, not giving up and saying "It's God!"

Arguing that current science can't explain something so it must be mystical or permanently inexplicable will get you into trouble, because science is always advancing. You are in the position of someone in 1680 saying disease must be supernatural because science hasn't been able to explain it yet. The problem is, the observations you term inexplicable today will be understood by science tomorrow, and you will be pushed further and further back in your attempts to give mystical explanations for natural events.

[joecoolfrog]

Submaniac

The question is really very simple , should children be indoctrinated according to the belief system of their parents ? A perfect example is the Theory of Evolution , the basic premise of which is accepted by 99% of peer reviewed scientists in the relevent fields.

Should a body of work which concerns purely the Natural world , which impinges not at all on philosophical debate , be attacked purely because it offends the sensibilities of certain dogmatic individuals ?

[daoyai]

Higgs Bosons? You mean the "God Particle"??? Those Higgs Bosons?

The "god" particle is a term invented by a journalist to get attention for an article, never refered as such by the researchers.

[opalred]

in 1000yrs our desendants will be living another world and universe and with help of super computers will be able to create big bang universes out there too

[Neeranam]

This is not an either or situation. You don't have to be educated and intelligent OR have religious beliefs. Your own article shows that for the most educated profession in the United States and the world, the majority have religious beliefs. In my previous post on this subject I wrote about Renae Descartes theorem proof for the existence of God. And I would not consider Descartes a fool. What religion is right, how exactly the universe works, I don't know. I am a shackled prisoner looking at shadows on a cave wall. (Plato.) "Stanford and/or UCLA would have you enough critical thinking skills"...Response: took alot of philosophy and have been getting into Buddhist thought as of late. That's where my perspective comes from.

You wrote, " I am a shackled prisoner looking at shadows on a cave wall." That is understandable when looking at modern science and how the universe works you quote philosophers who died in the 1600's.

May I suggest you upgrade your education. When talking about classics quote classical and when talking about modern quote modern. Science has the capability to determine the existence of an afterlife and/or reincarnation.

There is not afterlife or reincarnation and people who think there is are ignorant.

ig·no·rant

ˈignərənt/

adjective

adjective: ignorant

Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

No insult intended. Ignorant is a word not an insult.

If I sent my child to a university that allowed the teaching about an afterlife or reincarnation or the Easter bunny as real, I would change schools.

Egoism is the identification of the seer with the instrument of seeing.

The seer is really the Self, the pure one, the ever holy, the infinite, the immortal. This is the Self of man. And what are the instruments? The Chitta or mind-stuff, the Buddhi or determinative faculty, the Manas or mind, and the Indriyas or sense-organs. These are the instruments for him to see the external world, and the identification of the Self with the instruments is what is called the ignorance of egoism. We say, "I am the mind," "I am thought," "I am angry," or "I am happy". How can we be angry and how can we hate? We should identify ourselves with the Self that cannot change. If It is unchangeable, how can It be one moment happy, and one moment unhappy? It is formless, infinite, omnipresent. What can change It ? It is beyond all law. What can affect it? Nothing in the universe can produce an effect on It. Yet through ignorance, we identify ourselves with the mind-stuff, and think we feel pleasure or pain.

http://www.yoga-age.com/sutras/pata2.html

Edited July 17, 2014 by Neeranam

[thailiketoo]

This is not an either or situation. You don't have to be educated and intelligent OR have religious beliefs. Your own article shows that for the most educated profession in the United States and the world, the majority have religious beliefs. In my previous post on this subject I wrote about Renae Descartes theorem proof for the existence of God. And I would not consider Descartes a fool. What religion is right, how exactly the universe works, I don't know. I am a shackled prisoner looking at shadows on a cave wall. (Plato.) "Stanford and/or UCLA would have you enough critical thinking skills"...Response: took alot of philosophy and have been getting into Buddhist thought as of late. That's where my perspective comes from.

You wrote, " I am a shackled prisoner looking at shadows on a cave wall." That is understandable when looking at modern science and how the universe works you quote philosophers who died in the 1600's.

May I suggest you upgrade your education. When talking about classics quote classical and when talking about modern quote modern. Science has the capability to determine the existence of an afterlife and/or reincarnation.

There is not afterlife or reincarnation and people who think there is are ignorant.

ig·no·rant

ˈignərənt/

adjective

adjective: ignorant

Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

No insult intended. Ignorant is a word not an insult.

If I sent my child to a university that allowed the teaching about an afterlife or reincarnation or the Easter bunny as real, I would change schools.

Egoism is the identification of the seer with the instrument of seeing.

The seer is really the Self, the pure one, the ever holy, the infinite, the immortal. This is the Self of man. And what are the instruments? The Chitta or mind-stuff, the Buddhi or determinative faculty, the Manas or mind, and the Indriyas or sense-organs. These are the instruments for him to see the external world, and the identification of the Self with the instruments is what is called the ignorance of egoism. We say, "I am the mind," "I am thought," "I am angry," or "I am happy". How can we be angry and how can we hate? We should identify ourselves with the Self that cannot change. If It is unchangeable, how can It be one moment happy, and one moment unhappy? It is formless, infinite, omnipresent. What can change It ? It is beyond all law. What can affect it? Nothing in the universe can produce an effect on It. Yet through ignorance, we identify ourselves with the mind-stuff, and think we feel pleasure or pain.

http://www.yoga-age.com/sutras/pata2.html

Posting the words of Swami Vivekananda (an Indian guy who was born in the 1860's) has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

Life after death and reincarnation and the Easter bunny are myths from folklore. It is incumbent on the person propagating the foolishness to prove otherwise. The Swami didn't get it. No one has ever proved life after death or reincarnation or the existence of the Easter Bunny.

Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter. ... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion.

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

Edited July 17, 2014 by thailiketoo

[Neeranam]

This is not an either or situation. You don't have to be educated and intelligent OR have religious beliefs. Your own article shows that for the most educated profession in the United States and the world, the majority have religious beliefs. In my previous post on this subject I wrote about Renae Descartes theorem proof for the existence of God. And I would not consider Descartes a fool. What religion is right, how exactly the universe works, I don't know. I am a shackled prisoner looking at shadows on a cave wall. (Plato.) "Stanford and/or UCLA would have you enough critical thinking skills"...Response: took alot of philosophy and have been getting into Buddhist thought as of late. That's where my perspective comes from.

You wrote, " I am a shackled prisoner looking at shadows on a cave wall." That is understandable when looking at modern science and how the universe works you quote philosophers who died in the 1600's.

May I suggest you upgrade your education. When talking about classics quote classical and when talking about modern quote modern. Science has the capability to determine the existence of an afterlife and/or reincarnation.

There is not afterlife or reincarnation and people who think there is are ignorant.

ig·no·rant

ˈignərənt/

adjective

adjective: ignorant

Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

No insult intended. Ignorant is a word not an insult.

If I sent my child to a university that allowed the teaching about an afterlife or reincarnation or the Easter bunny as real, I would change schools.

Egoism is the identification of the seer with the instrument of seeing.

The seer is really the Self, the pure one, the ever holy, the infinite, the immortal. This is the Self of man. And what are the instruments? The Chitta or mind-stuff, the Buddhi or determinative faculty, the Manas or mind, and the Indriyas or sense-organs. These are the instruments for him to see the external world, and the identification of the Self with the instruments is what is called the ignorance of egoism. We say, "I am the mind," "I am thought," "I am angry," or "I am happy". How can we be angry and how can we hate? We should identify ourselves with the Self that cannot change. If It is unchangeable, how can It be one moment happy, and one moment unhappy? It is formless, infinite, omnipresent. What can change It ? It is beyond all law. What can affect it? Nothing in the universe can produce an effect on It. Yet through ignorance, we identify ourselves with the mind-stuff, and think we feel pleasure or pain.

http://www.yoga-age.com/sutras/pata2.html

Posting the words of Swami Vivekananda (an Indian guy who was born in the 1860's) has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

Life after death and reincarnation and the Easter bunny are myths from folklore. It is incumbent on the person propagating the foolishness to prove otherwise. The Swami didn't get it. No one has ever proved life after death or reincarnation or the existence of the Easter Bunny.

Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter. ... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion.

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

Actually it was Patanjali who was born over 2000 years ago that talked about what ignorance is.

It's rather arrogant of you to say 95% of Thais and indeed more than 50% of the world's people are ignorant.

Talking about the Easter bunny is a pathetic effort to belittle those that believe in reincarnation IMHO.

This thread has about reached the end of it's life.

There is more to our universe than the purely physical - there are a few scientists who disagree as there were a few who once said the world was flat.

[Neeranam]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGCLeYWjGvk

Is this proof of reincarnation?

[joecoolfrog]

I agree , the comparison is absurd , belief in the Easter Bunny never harmed anybody !

[daoyai]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGCLeYWjGvk

Is this proof of reincarnation?

Proof ? far from it, if this is the best you can provide then.... it is a good example of confirmation bias ..... The most logical explanation is the tyke saw something on the telly about the island, he obviously craves a father figure in his life so to ease that longing he created a fantasy that included a strong present father figure and a happier place than his sad dreary life with mum. The guy from the US has built his career on the stories of these types of kids so he will always confirm and support the stories, this time he got a free and compensated trip to Scotland plus tv exposure so he has a stake in the story.

Edited July 18, 2014 by daoyai

[tartempion]

Actually it was Patanjali who was born over 2000 years ago that talked about what ignorance is.

It's rather arrogant of you to say 95% of Thais and indeed more than 50% of the world's people are ignorant.

Talking about the Easter bunny is a pathetic effort to belittle those that believe in reincarnation IMHO.

This thread has about reached the end of it's life.

There is more to our universe than the purely physical - there are a few scientists who disagree as there were a few who once said the world was flat.

I rather agree with Thailikeitoo.

I doubt indeed 95% of any humans have some understanding of modern philosophy or psychology.

It's a long way from Plato/Aristoteles to the French philosphers Pascal, Descartes, JJ Rousseau to Kant, Hegel and 20th century JP Sarte and Eckhart Tolle.

Brilliant Descartes got it wrong with "cogito ergo sum (English: "I think, therefore I am")"

Jean-Paul Sartre has it right with "L'enfer c'est les autres(Hell are the others)"

And Eckhart Tolle is on the mark with "Humans are a dysfunctional species"

[thailiketoo]

Is this proof of reincarnation?

Replication (scientific method), one of the main principles of the scientific method, a.k.a. reproducibility.

[thailiketoo]

Posting the words of Swami Vivekananda (an Indian guy who was born in the 1860's) has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

Life after death and reincarnation and the Easter bunny are myths from folklore. It is incumbent on the person propagating the foolishness to prove otherwise. The Swami didn't get it. No one has ever proved life after death or reincarnation or the existence of the Easter Bunny.

Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter. ... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion.

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

Actually it was Patanjali who was born over 2000 years ago that talked about what ignorance is.

It's rather arrogant of you to say 95% of Thais and indeed more than 50% of the world's people are ignorant.

Talking about the Easter bunny is a pathetic effort to belittle those that believe in reincarnation IMHO.

This thread has about reached the end of it's life.

There is more to our universe than the purely physical - there are a few scientists who disagree as there were a few who once said the world was flat.

After the 5th century BC, no Greek writer of repute thought the world was anything but round.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbizzLzcpnM

It is sad that anyone could be so ignorant in this day and age. That's how I feel about reincarnation.

[ChrisB87]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

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.

The turning point on the surface level of the mind?

More practice is required of all of us. We shouldn't even be here bickering like this.

Edited July 18, 2014 by ChrisB87

[Frank James]

It's always fun to read a thread where the militant atheists and those who have made "science" their religion get to ridicule others and dazzle us with the superiority of their viewpoint. We are staggered.

[thailiketoo]

It's always fun to read a thread where the militant atheists and those who have made "science" their religion get to ridicule others and dazzle us with the superiority of their viewpoint. We are staggered.

We know who the militant atheists and religious folk are. Who are you to make such judgments? Supreme being? I noticed the royal WE. A king maybe?

[daoyai]

It's always fun to read a thread where the militant atheists and those who have made "science" their religion get to ridicule others and dazzle us with the superiority of their viewpoint. We are staggered.

Religious believers have a hard time understanding how antitheists can not have a religion so they think that science must be a religion. This shows that they neither understand atheism or science. Science is a process of investigation and research, not a belief system or superstition. It is always fun to read a thread by true believers as they amuse us with their astounding lack of critical thinking ability.