Where else?

[Angrboda]

You do realize it's possible to believe in evolution and reincarnation.  The two aren't mutually exclusive.

There is nothing in atheism which says we don't reincarnate.  It's just that you and you alone are claiming that reincarnation is real.  And if I remember your argument right, it's that, "NDEs something something therefore karma something therefore reincarnation."  You never really pulled that one off.  You just kept repeating the same nonsensical excuses.

Gee, something new yog.
I have been looking for atheists that believe in reincarnation with no success and now you telling me that there are.
That is great yog.
Tell me who they are so I can pat them in the back.  

Buddhists believe that gods exist, but Buddhism doesn't generally involve looking to gods to explain reality. They believe in karma and reincarnation, but not personally involved gods. The Jains also believe in reincarnation, but they don't believe in gods. And there are numerous people who believe in past lives who aren't affiliated with any belief in god. The simple fact is that not having a belief in an interacting god is no impediment to believing in reincarnation.

Jainism is not fatalistic, but it is atheistic. There is no world-soul, no supreme being, no creator and sustainer of the universe, no one beyond himself (except the Tirthankaras as guides and examples) to aid man in his endeavors.

http://www.jainworld.com/book/jainism/ch11.asp

[Angrboda]

ETA:  I just noticed, you even confirmed exactly what I said, that all I'm doing is countering your bullshit.  Nice argument, "No Evidence" Rik!

The bulk of my posts have been in threads that you started, assmunch.  So don't blame me if you can't finish what you started.  Even those in the Howard Storm thread are attacking the notion that NDEs are real -- after you made claims about them.  That's your turf, douchebag.

If you can't provide any evidence, I guess trash talk and complaining about it is the best you can do.

There is nothing wrong with trying to contradict my ideas but there is something very wrong when
you do that and at the same time you say......I'm not defending anything here........

You stubbornly   defend your belief that NDEs are not real because if they would be proven real then
it would be the very end of atheism.
Be honest with yourself yog at least.
Stop be an hypocrite.  

(emphasis mine)

You've shown time and time again that you don't know jack about atheism. I'm skeptical of claims that NDEs require a non-physical explanation. My skepticism is validated by the medical science, by the lack of verification of the elements of NDEs, and by general prudence. Even if I weren't skeptical that NDEs demonstrate a separation of body and consciousness, I'd still find your claim that they confirm karma and reincarnation to be preposterous. We are justified in believing only those aspects of NDEs which have been confirmed, and that doesn't confirm heaven, god, karma, reincarnation or any of the other purely experiential side of NDEs. It is true that I am a materialist, but my materialism isn't founded upon my disbelief in gods. Finding out that consciousness can be separated from the body would do nothing to my belief in god because the evidence for gods still wouldn't be there; you'd have a bunch of experiences, many contradicting, that describe a broad range of particulars, and only in very general and vague terms agree on details about gods. As a rule, I prefer material explanations because material causes and effects can be demonstrated to exist -- my preference is pragmatic, not ideological. I had the same bias as a Hindu who worshiped a god as I do now. I don't unilaterally rule out spiritual explanations, and indeed I've even provided support for such in cases in which you made claims but failed to produce evidence.

So, no, I'm not a hypocrite, and I will continue to press my skepticism of your claims and note loudly where you fail to provide "solid evidence" for those claims.

[Simon Moon]

I love how these people come onto an atheist page thinking they can convert us with their logic and insults... it's cute.

Since when does Rik use logic?

Please point me to one of his posts where he used logic....

[Little Rik]

There is nothing wrong with trying to contradict my ideas but there is something very wrong when
you do that and at the same time you say......I'm not defending anything here........

You stubbornly   defend your belief that NDEs are not real because if they would be proven real then
it would be the very end of atheism.
Be honest with yourself yog at least.
Stop be an hypocrite.  

(emphasis mine)

You've shown time and time again that you don't know jack about atheism.  I'm skeptical of claims that NDEs require a non-physical explanation.  My skepticism is validated by the medical science, by the lack of verification of the elements of NDEs, and by general prudence.  Even if I weren't skeptical that NDEs demonstrate a separation of body and consciousness, I'd still find your claim that they confirm karma and reincarnation to be preposterous. We are justified in believing only those aspects of NDEs which have been confirmed, and that doesn't confirm heaven, god, karma, reincarnation or any of the other purely experiential side of NDEs.  It is true that I am a materialist, but my materialism isn't founded upon my disbelief in gods.  Finding out that consciousness can be separated from the body would do nothing to my belief in god because the evidence for gods still wouldn't be there; you'd have a bunch of experiences, many contradicting, that describe a broad range of particulars, and only in very general and vague terms agree on details about gods.  As a rule, I prefer material explanations because material causes and effects can be demonstrated to exist -- my preference is pragmatic, not ideological.  I had the same bias as a Hindu who worshiped a god as I do now.  I don't unilaterally rule out spiritual explanations, and indeed I've even provided support for such in cases in which you made claims but failed to produce evidence.  

So, no, I'm not a hypocrite, and I will continue to press my skepticism of your claims and note loudly where you fail to provide "solid evidence" for those claims.

Let me see if I got it right yog.
According to you materialism is good because ........... material causes and effects can be demonstrated to exist..........but spirituality not because .......because....because what?
Oh, I see, it is impossible to demonstrate that there is karma (causes and effects).

In other words it is just a question of good luck and bad luck if someone born poor, sick, die of starvation or has his life cut short while somebody else born in top nick and live a good life?

Sure it could well be like this but LR is very very doubtful.
If this would be the case the universe would have disintegrated millions years ago.

I understand that some people win millions at lotto but the odds to win are one in a million while the odds to lose are the opposite so good or bad luck don't make any sense in this universal reality.

Sorry yog, I don't buy your naivety.  

[Little Rik]

Gee, something new yog.
I have been looking for atheists that believe in reincarnation with no success and now you telling me that there are.
That is great yog.
Tell me who they are so I can pat them in the back.  

Buddhists believe that gods exist, but Buddhism doesn't generally involve looking to gods to explain reality.  They believe in karma and reincarnation, but not personally involved gods.  The Jains also believe in reincarnation, but they don't believe in gods.   And there are numerous people who believe in past lives who aren't affiliated with any belief in god.  The simple fact is that not having a belief in an interacting god is no impediment to believing in reincarnation.

Jainism is not fatalistic, but it is atheistic.  There is no world-soul, no supreme being, no creator and sustainer of the universe, no one beyond himself (except the Tirthankaras as guides and examples) to aid man in his endeavors.

http://www.jainworld.com/book/jainism/ch11.asp

Buddha had to deal with the people of his time and so Jesus and all other spiritual beings.
If they wanted to be understood they had no option but explain the truth in a way that people would
accept which may be different from what could be taught in different times where people would have a different logic to perceive and understand teachings.

It is quite possible that in those times it would have been futile to talk about God to those people.
Instead Buddha was trying to teach a system that slowly would lead these people to God anyway.

Why I know this?
Because Buddha was practicing yoga.
Pure yoga and yoga is all about reducing the distance or radius that separate us from God so it is impossible that Buddha wouldn't believe in God and impossible that he wouldn't know that his teachings sooner or later would lead people to get to God.

Jainism is a strange belief that twist simple things in difficult one.

Take this statement......Jainism does not believe in God as a creator, survivor, and destroyer of the universe. However Jainism does believe in God, not as a creator, but as a perfect being. When a person destroys all his karmas, he becomes a liberated soul. He resides in a perfect blissful state in Moksha....

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid...ism%20gods

In other words God is still there but you have to go around and around to get it.
Not worth it.  

[chimp3]

In other words it is just a question of good luck and bad luck if someone born poor, sick, die of starvation or has his life cut short while somebody else born in top nick and live a good life?

Sure it could well be like this but LR is very very doubtful.
If this would be the case the universe would have disintegrated millions years ago.

I understand that some people win millions at lotto but the odds to win are one in a million while the odds to lose are the opposite so good or bad luck don't make any sense in this universal reality.

Sometimes people die of starvation because rich pigs at the top of the economic ladder sell crops for profit and let the workers starve (Irish Potato famine). Sometimes people have their life cut short because they are sent to war or are murdered by psychopaths. Diseases, shark attacks, bee stings! What is so mysterious about these things that you require a pseudo-mystical explanation?

LR : "If this would be the case the universe would have disintegrated millions years ago."

Perhaps if there was universal justice or a just god something should have disintegrated like rich pigs who let others starve while growing obese themselves. But since a just god does not exist we are stuck with laws and the will of the people.

LR: "I understand that some people win millions at lotto but the odds to win are one in a million while the odds to lose are the opposite so good or bad luck don't make any sense in this universal reality."

Whatever the odds people do win the lottery. Why does that need a pseudo-mystical explanation?

( I know I am going to be sorry I asked but it is early and I am well fortified with caffeine)

[Little Rik]

I love how these people come onto an atheist page thinking they can convert us with their logic and insults... it's cute.

Since when does Rik use logic?

Please point me to one of his posts where he used logic....

Very good Simon.
I am glad to find one expert in logic after so long.  

I just try to understand the meaning of your signature which basically say that a truth would be supported by good evidence so there is no need for faith.
Now let us for a minute forget about religions and concentrate on what would be a good evidence.

Here I am a bit puzzled because in general atheism believe in material evidence but God is not made of matter so how can an atheist understand God by using material-physical means?
Please Simon help LR to understand using your LOGIC.  

[Little Rik]

In other words it is just a question of good luck and bad luck if someone born poor, sick, die of starvation or has his life cut short while somebody else born in top nick and live a good life?

Sure it could well be like this but LR is very very doubtful.
If this would be the case the universe would have disintegrated millions years ago.

I understand that some people win millions at lotto but the odds to win are one in a million while the odds to lose are the opposite so good or bad luck don't make any sense in this universal reality.

Sometimes people die of starvation because rich pigs at the top of the economic ladder sell crops for profit and let the workers starve (Irish Potato famine). Sometimes people have their life cut short because they are sent to war or are murdered by psychopaths. Diseases, shark attacks, bee stings! What is so mysterious about these things that you require a pseudo-mystical explanation?

In other words according to you is all about good or bad luck, isn't it chimp?
It could be that but I don't believe in good or bad luck.
The time will tell chimp.
In the meantime I avoid as much as I can doing things that could boomerang back to me (cause and effect or karma).

LR : "If this would be the case the universe would have disintegrated millions years ago."

Perhaps if there was universal justice or a just god something should have disintegrated like rich pigs who let others starve while growing obese themselves. But since a just god does not exist we are stuck with laws and the will of the people.

You imply that if there would be a God this God would act or take action ASAP.
Why would he-she act ASAP?
Suppose you are a father and your grown up kids do something wrong.
They are grown up they got their own free will why would you intervene?
These grown up kids are now responsible for their actions.
They reach a stage in which it doesn't make sense for you to intervene.
They will sooner or later have to deal with their actions.
Why should you intervene and control their lives anymore?
It doesn't make any sense chimp.    

LR: "I understand that some people win millions at lotto but the odds to win are one in a million while the odds to lose are the opposite so good or bad luck don't make any sense in this universal reality."

Whatever the odds people do win the lottery. Why does that need a pseudo-mystical explanation?

Nothing last for ever unless a source nourish what exist.
The universe is no exception.
Energy and all other fundamental factors that make up the universe are fed all the time if they have a chance to keep on existing.
Good luck and bad luck are something that I let gullible people to believe.

( I know I am going to be sorry I asked but it is early and I am well fortified with caffeine)

When I am out of energy I pick up some parsley from my garden I juice them, mix with water and drink them.
Much better and more healthy than caffeine.  

[chimp3]

You imply that if there would be a God this God would act or take action ASAP.
Why would he-she act ASAP?
Suppose you are a father and your grown up kids do something wrong.
They are grown up they got their own free will why would you intervene?
These grown up kids are now responsible for their actions.
They reach a stage in which it doesn't make sense for you to intervene.
They will sooner or later have to deal with their actions.
Why should you intervene and control their lives anymore?
It doesn't make any sense chimp.    

In case you haven't noticed many people in the world are children.

[Angrboda]

Oh, I see, it is impossible to demonstrate that there is karma (causes and effects).

In other words it is just a question of good luck and bad luck if someone born poor, sick, die of starvation or has his life cut short while somebody else born in top nick and live a good life?

Sure it could well be like this but LR is very very doubtful.
If this would be the case the universe would have disintegrated millions years ago.

Why would the universe have disintegrated "millions years ago?"

I understand that some people win millions at lotto but the odds to win are one in a million while the odds to lose are the opposite so good or bad luck don't make any sense in this universal reality.

Sorry yog, I don't buy your naivety.  

What exactly are you suggesting is so improbable that it could not occur?

What all this has to do with providing evidence that god exists and is perfection is beyond me. I'm sure you've got some kind of story or analogy why this all makes sense. What I doubt that you have is any solid evidence that this is the case. You're talking a lot, but you're not saying much.