Reincarnation

[Tiberius]

Well the fact that you haven't looked at the presented evidence for something as absurd as reincarnation, (so far believed to be absurd by people such as me anyway) that of course doesn't mean there can't be any evidence, indeed. Because you can't possibly know that and you haven't checked it out yet, right.

Well seeing as I have looked at the evidence I don't see how this is related to my argument. I of course believe reincarnation is absurd as you do, but I base this on the evidence (or lack thereof) for it. The point I am making is that when someone presents me with what they claim is evidence, I will not just fall back on my previous belief that it is absurd; I will evaluate the new evidence. My mind may change, it may not.

But what I wonder is if there's no real, practical reason to take it any more seriously than the FSM...then I'm thinking that if you believe that Kyu's attitude is indeed as you say "that anything that is related to reincarnation is automatically "bollocks"." and that "Such an attitude is both anti-scientific and close-minded." - then I wonder if you would also say that it's anti-scientific and close minded to say that anything releated to the FSM is automatically bollocks?

I say it is anti-scientific and close minded to reject any claim without first actually evaluating it. The only options that are rational to take are to either ignore the claim and give up your right to say "there is no evidence...blah blah blah" (since evidence was presented but you ignored it), or to evaluate the evidence and hold onto your right to say whether you accept it or not.

Now on principle, of course you can't absolutely know that anything related to the FSM is bollocks. But in a practical and sense you can very seriously argue that it's so bloody improbable that it's not bollocks that it's a waste of time to look into it right...(the FSM that is)...would you agree with that? And if so...do you believe it's the same case with reincarnation or not?

In a practical sense yes, but I'm afraid "so bloody improbable" is in no way close to "100% impossible". Like I have said before, it is worth looking into if the evidence ever arises, but you are not obligated to. You can forfeit your right to claim there is no evidence in this case, unless you want to be a hypocrite.

To reject something outright without even considering evidence for it is ludicrous, given that we know hardly anything about this universe, and science does not reveal truth, it reveals probable truth. Science is constantly improving its answers, and if this is to continue, nothing must be rejected. Why do you think we keep pressing the Discovery Institute to publish a document on I.D for peer-review? It is not just making a point that no evidence exists as of yet, it is making the point that if the Discovery Institute (or anyone else for that matter) were to publish such a document, it would meet the same standard of scientific scrutiny and evaluation as any other.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well seeing as I have looked at the evidence I don't see how this is related to my argument. I of course believe reincarnation is absurd as you do, but I base this on the evidence (or lack thereof) for it. The point I am making is that when someone presents me with what they claim is evidence, I will not just fall back on my previous belief that it is absurd; I will evaluate the new evidence. My mind may change, it may not.

To reject something outright without even considering evidence for it is ludicrous, given that we know hardly anything about this universe, and science does not reveal truth, it reveals probable truth

Indeed. So I guess it's whether "X has no evidence" or "X doesn't exist" is a claim of absolute knowledge or just an expression of a current disbelief based on the improbability of such a thing having evidence or existing.

Science is constantly improving its answers, and if this is to continue, nothing must be rejected.

And that's of course one of the reasons (if not the primary reason? Or perhaps even the reason that it's all pretty much built on??) for why science is so awesome.

Why do you think we keep pressing the Discovery Institute to publish a document on I.D for peer-review? It is not just making a point that no evidence exists as of yet, it is making the point that if the Discovery Institute (or anyone else for that matter) were to publish such a document, it would meet the same standard of scientific scrutiny and evaluation as any other.

And I think what's good about that, is that the matter of I.D covers all Gods including the deistic. If any God in particular was singled out then the problem with that is that there are countless Gods or God-type-things to single out...the FSM, etc, etc, etc, included. It's not really testable by science is it? If only because it's far better because it's infinitely more practical to cover "God" as a whole. And how can the differences really be tested?

Perhaps I.D is testable but theism isn't then? Is that what is implied there? I could also imagine there being a prime-mover but that's not really a "God" in the sense of a supernatural creator though... so I still wonder how Deism could be tested by science without it being simply a singularity + a metaphor that uses the word "God"?

Very good post btw.

EvF

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I don't believe in reincarnation for the same reason I believe in gods: lack of evidence.


Sadly, I really need something with a greater degree of credibility than a video.

Kyu's response was rational in context. Somethings need to be dismissed out of hand.That includes extraordinary claims which rely on video evidence.

[Tiberius]

Sadly, I really need something with a greater degree of credibility than a video.

Kyu's response was rational in context. Somethings need to be dismissed out of hand.That includes extraordinary claims which rely on video evidence.

I would hold that nothing needs to be dismissed out of hand. What would happen if a legitimate claim came along and you dismissed it for the same reasons?

I agree with dismissing stuff upon evaluation, but dismissing stuff just because it happens to be considered bullshit is a ridiculous idea.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well yes...How do you know it's not worth looking into, if you haven't checked it out yet? I agree on that point.

What I mean is that: Yes it's not impossible, yes you can't prove a negative. Yes, if someone presents even a claim on the FSM...you can check that out too. And it would be wrong to specifically claim that you know absolutely that it doesn't exist. But what I'm wondering is: How do you know how to judge it? Or how do you know when you've judged it successfully, properly...or thoroughly enough? And isn't your time perhaps better spent, searching for things that aren't analogous in an absurd degree of complex improbability to Russell's Teapot or the FSM?

Yes they may not be that absurd, becasue they may actually exist (it's not impossible, you can't prove a negative) but isn't your time perhaps better spent elsewhere? How do you test it? Are these things even falsifiable by their definition? Isn't it pretty much like...searching for orbital teapots when someone claims to have a theory on such a matter: Not impossible...but a waste of your time basically?

When someone says something is simply "Bollocks" how do you decide if that statement means "I know it's bollocks" or rather "I think it's bollocks I have my own reasons for that and I simply don't think it's worthwile checking into it. But it's easier to simply just say it's "Bollocks" than repeat this statement on such occasions all the time."?

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

This is the same attitude the creationists take. The fact is, we don't know what the conclusion will be, and we will never know. Science doesn't prove things, it gives them a probability of being correct. Just because reincarnation (replace with any weird pseudoscience or belief) hasn't got any evidence to back it up doesn't mean the evidence won't eventually turn up.

It's not and you know it's not Adrian ... it's primarily about being too fucking lazy to argue with what I pretty much "know" (based on my experience of dealing with flakes like the woman in the link) is going to be a dumb fucking argument.

Sure, if you want, I'll do a blow by blow analysis of the bloody thing but you know what the end result will be, I know it and I AM (like it or not) just cutting out the middleman (because I know that's where we'll fucking well end up)!

Kyu

[Tiberius]

I agree that it's not very likely, but "not very likely" is not the same as "completely impossible". That you cannot see the difference between knowing and "pretty much knowing" is quite astounding to me.

I know it and I AM (like it or not) just cutting out the middleman (because I know that's where we'll fucking well end up)!

Cut out the middleman? You do realize that the middleman is SCIENCE here right? Perhaps you should take a leaf out of James Randi's book. He has a similar attitude (that these things are all bunk), but he actually tests them using the scientific method. This I agree with, because even though numerous psychics have done the test and failed, he still lets psychics apply. Why? Because one of these days he just might meet a real one.

If you are so sure that you are correct, and this thing is all bunk, what have you got to lose? If I hadn't applied the same reasoning to God, I would still be a Christian; maybe that's why I respect these kind of skeptical attitudes.

[Dotard]

Just for fun humor me for a moment and say reincarnation happens.

If given the choice what would you choose to come back as?

Me, I would want to come back as a Dung Beetle. Think about it, all your needs, housing, food, breeding grounds all rolled up in a compact ball of poo.

No forging around for food or shelter! Snug in your shelter if you get hungry, just eat from the walls of your house of poo! Tired of the scenery? Just roll your home to a new location AND snack along the way!

Life would be so grand! I was gonna say life would be a piece of cake, but I don't think a dung beetle would want cake, he'd want poo. So life really would be a piece of poo which would be a good thing for a dung beetle.



(I really gotta quit smoking so much pot so early in the morning)

[Edwardo Piet]

I just don't see why it's any more worth the time and effort to go searching for Russell's Teapot, the IPU, the FSM, etc, etc , etc - countless, countless things you wouldn't waste your time looking for - so why pick-out reincarnation to look into, I just wonder?

Why not try and test some other miracles for a start? Out of the countless "Miracles" you could dream up? Hm..

It certainly isn't impossible. But isn't it so improbable that it's about as futile to look into as searching for Orbital teapots?

It's not like we're looking for a prime mover...if that's found it might not even be God by any "Supernatural" definition. Might just be the perfectly natural first cause!

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

Cut out the middleman? You do realize that the middleman is SCIENCE here right?

Fer god's sake Adrian ... cut me a little fucking slack will you?

You know EXACTLY what I mean when we are dealing with this sort of shit ... so you don't approve? Well I never asked you to did I?

Kyu