Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 5:05 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Philosophy
#31
RE: Philosophy
(March 30, 2009 at 11:24 am)dagda Wrote:
(March 29, 2009 at 8:51 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: The entire idea of incorporeal souls seems daft to me (what with their being no evidence for and some significant evidence against) and don't even get me started on the idea of it being a "theory" (it's just more fantasy gah gah land).

I think I pointed out (or I should have) that this is only a hypothesis. Most theories start of with a hypothesis and then evidence is acumulated which either proves the hypothesis or disproves it. At the present time, I have no possible way of taking my hypothesis beyond that point. As it is only a hypothesis, I need less evidence than if this was a theory.

You see I have a problem with you calling it a "hypothesis" ... "hypotheses" tend to be based on evidence too, just not enough evidence to call them theories, they have a degree of fit (with existing accepted explanations) and are usually based on previous observations or are extensions of existing ones, they tend to predict things (and so are testable) and the sad fact is that your "hypothesis" offers none of these things so really all it is is a good idea or "wizard wheeze". Given that none of these kind of claims has EVER been supported by a shred of verifiable evidence, given that any time the rational, objective mind is turned towards such things they are always found to be lacking and often to be based on fraud I think it entirely reasonable of me to refer to what you posted as "fairy gah gah land"

Now you may think that is closed minded of me but in actual fact it isn't ... not only can you sway me (all I require is a "hypothesis" AND a little evidence) but it is worth pointing out that being "open-minded" doesn't or shouldn't equate to allowing oneself to entertain ideas that have more in common with tales of faeries, leprechauns and little green men in flying saucers. So, a little evidence please (real, observable, testable, evidence) and perhaps a prediction that might be testable ... is that so much to ask?

The rest of your post was, I'm afraid, just more of the same.

Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!

Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Reply
#32
RE: Philosophy
I'll admit there isn't much with the population rising, it's just one factor to consider is what I mean to say. If your guesses are right then we cannot make new children until we kill something that was alive, the universe has a population limit which is a random guess with nothing for or against it aside from it's arbitrary.

With the cycles, you speak of cycles we can observe then basically go on to say that lends support for a cycle we have no reason to consider. rather than ask why NOt reincarnation I would ask why reincarnation? Maybe you have a soul that as part of it's course gets turned into thermal energy which then comes to earth via a radiator and burns a guys cat?

My terrible humor aside, I see no reason to humor the idea of reincarnation aside from it just sounds cool. And asking why not seems a terrible defence, a question to be asked only after the why has been determined. (If you cannot determine a reason to humor an idea, then THAT's why not.)
http://ca.youtube.com/user/DemonAuraProductions - Check out my videos if you have spare time.
Agnostic
Atheist
I Evolved!
Reply
#33
RE: Philosophy
First of all-fraud. Are you telling me that for the last 900 years or so, monks have been finding what they concider to be the reincarnation of most lama's that are even remotly important due to fraud? The mountain of coincidences which surround these events may point to this assumption if you think 'rationaly' but think what this would involve.

At the end of any remotly important lama's life (unless otherwise stated by the said lama), a group of people go out to find a person who was born (concived?) at or near the moment of that lama's death in the direction that the lama was looking when he/she died (or in directions laid down in visions etc). This is a feat in itself, but then we concider that a new incarnation must pass a set of tests in which they must identify old clothes etc which belonged to the old lama from AMONG other, unrelated cloths and, after the preliminary testing, pass further tests to confirm that they are the new incarnation of that lama, it seems impossibe without fruad or acctual spiritual guidence/reincarnation.

This could all be conincidences, but when we concider its repeated reocurance down the centuries, this seems unlikley.

Maybe it is faked? Again, this seems unlikley when we look at the situation again. First of all, who is faking it? A secret society, the Dali Lama or the entire Buddhist religion, just for the heck of it?

Secondly, why are they faking it at all? There must be some reason or they (whoever they are) would not bother doing it. Presumably electing new lama's (like the Catholics elect Pope's etc) would be more convineant for all (they can keep a firm hand on the reins of power and no costly search etc) so why bother?

And then there is the most important reason why it can not be fakery. How do they keep it secret? None of the Lama's seem aware of this so-called fraud, so how do you keep something like that secret for so long without telling the people involved in your fraud? Surely someone would cotton on to the fact?

Maybe the Lama's are in on it but are lying? Not only does this seem far to snug (really, nobel peace prize winners lying so openly?) it is highly improbable. 'Three men can keep a secret, but only if two of them are dead' as they say. The chances of keeping a secret in for such a long time, with so many people involved is near impossible.

If you can answer me these questions, I will reconsider reincarnation, but this is the evidence which has prompted me to put forwrad reincarnation as a hypothesis. I would still like to see the evidence against reincarnation Kyu.
Reply
#34
RE: Philosophy
You ever see any of these assumed reincarnates (asking about your interaction if any, not trying to say you have to witness it first hand)? Personally I wouldn't see much of them either way where I live.

So far as I'm told all they really have to do is select a certain number of items that were personal to the old lama, personally I doubt this is particularly difficult if you knew anything about the old lama or have the ability to see a pattern in the items.

I don't doubt that THEY think this one person is so special that he shows up repeatedly. I doubt them, they could choose 100 people in a row but, it's still their opinion which means nothing to me.

Really it all sounds akin to claiming I am the antichrist because I am the 13th child of the 13th generation and am also an atheist. I am both of those by the way, including the ever so cool birth pattern. (I may have the exact thing wrong, it's been awhile since I heard it and I rarely think much of it.)

So no I don't think they are lying but, is it THAT surprising that these guys could convince themselves of whatever they wanted? There are people out there that beleive in a literal story of creation, that are so deep into religion that they are willing to starve their own child to death because he would not say 'amen' after eating. It's a true story, he was just over a single year old.

We also spent years thinking the earth was flat, the sun orbited the earth and the moon appearing during the day meant it was time for sacrifice or the gods would burn our crops. These monks WANT to find what they are looking for, and the mind fills in the gaps.

Am I telling you that a bunch of religious monks who are going out specifically looking for a single thing could be wrong? Hell yes I am.
http://ca.youtube.com/user/DemonAuraProductions - Check out my videos if you have spare time.
Agnostic
Atheist
I Evolved!
Reply
#35
RE: Philosophy
(March 31, 2009 at 2:51 pm)dagda Wrote: First of all-fraud. Are you telling me that for the last 900 years or so, monks have been finding what they concider to be the reincarnation of most lama's that are even remotly important due to fraud? The mountain of coincidences which surround these events may point to this assumption if you think 'rationaly' but think what this would involve.

How would one show they were real? Yes, though some undoubtedly believe that kind of bilge, I'm certainly in the camp that would say some of them fake it.

I wouldn't call the stuff you mentioned coincidence, I'd call it simple delusion.

'nuff said!

Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!

Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Reply
#36
RE: Philosophy
The process of selection entails the candidate selecting items IN THE PRESENCE of the monks who know which articles belong to the deceased. The candidate could be reasonably expected to read the body langauge of the monks. In Tibet,the likelihood of fraud cannot reasonably be dismissed.

What about coincidences? How do you explain them? There's nothing weird or mystical about coincidence. Reality is random. Imo what's weird is the human tendency to attempt to find meaning and purpose where there is none.


A quick word on Tibet; A corrupt,cruel feudal theocracy until the Dalai Lama left in 1959.. I do not now and have never supported the hysterical bleating about the independence of Tibet. I am unable to support any form of theocracy,even a consitutional one.
Reply
#37
RE: Philosophy
(March 31, 2009 at 6:39 pm)padraic Wrote: A quick word on Tibet; A corrupt,cruel feudal theocracy until the Dalai Lama left in 1959.. I do not now and have never supported the hysterical bleating about the independence of Tibet. I am unable to support any form of theocracy,even a consitutional one.

I'd like to know more about this (I had rather thought the opposite) ... got any decent links?

Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!

Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Reply
#38
RE: Philosophy
@ Kyu

This all I could find quickly.

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

The absurdly romantic view of Tibet was effectively invented in the C19th by the charlatan and nutjob Helena Blavatsky,who claimed to have spent time in Tibet. A claim which was almost certainly untrue.

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

To get a broad idea, I recommend the first autobiography of The Dalai Lama "My Land and My People",written in the early 1960's. Also "Seven Years In Tibet" by HeinricH Harrer (yes,I know he was a Nazi)
Reply
#39
RE: Philosophy
'So far as I'm told all they really have to do is select a certain number of items that were personal to the old lama, personally I doubt this is particularly difficult if you knew anything about the old lama or have the ability to see a pattern in the items.'

A child of two or three years old (if not younger) recognising patterns or knowing something of Lama who died before they were born is kind of slim.


'Am I telling you that a bunch of religious monks who are going out specifically looking for a single thing could be wrong? Hell yes I am.'


Perhaps you are right, they are bais. However, there are non-monks who hold secular posts in the government who are involved in these searches. These people are inteligent. Very inteligent. This does not discount bais, but it does mean we should put more weight in there words. These are not just some bunch of religious nuts. That it has reocured over such a long period of time and in such quantities means that people should at least have a look into the occurance and it certianly points to something going on which is not as simple as a far to positive and bais outlook on life. The councidences, again, are too great.


'How would one show they were real? Yes, though some undoubtedly believe that kind of bilge, I'm certainly in the camp that would say some of them fake it.'


Again, who is faking it, for what purpose and why bother? Also, how do they manage the large miricle of not letting the word get out?

I would still like to see the evidence against, Kyu.


'What about coincidences? How do you explain them? There's nothing weird or mystical about coincidence. Reality is random. Imo what's weird is the human tendency to attempt to find meaning and purpose where there is none.'


Exactly, coincidences are random. The repeated occurance of the coincidence in large quantities over a prelonged period of time make chalking it up to purley random coincidence statisticaly improbable and logicaly odd.


'A quick word on Tibet; A corrupt,cruel feudal theocracy until the Dalai Lama left in 1959.. I do not now and have never supported the hysterical bleating about the independence of Tibet. I am unable to support any form of theocracy,even a consitutional one.'


And after 1959 it became a corrupt, cruel communist dictatorship. The only diffrence between the two was that Tibet was no longer independent and have now been turned into a minority in their own land. I do not thing an independent Tibet is such a good idea, but I think they should become an autonomus part of India. They are more culturaly akin.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Poetry, Philosophy, or Science? Mudhammam 0 1172 March 22, 2014 at 4:37 pm
Last Post: Mudhammam
  Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy theresidentskeptic 272 136538 December 10, 2013 at 12:02 am
Last Post: Vincenzo Vinny G.
  Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy Love 213 59963 May 8, 2013 at 2:20 pm
Last Post: Love



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)