opinions of reincarnation

Dades

rugbyman wrote: »

I was an athiest untill I read on Boards that Atheism could be regarded as a form of belief so now am back to a full fledged Agnostic!

Let me get this straight - you reverted from being an atheist to an agnostic because someone on boards described atheism as a belief? Isn't atheism a lack of belief?

And surely the term "full fledged agnostic" is an oxymoron. :pac:

Sam Vimes

rugbyman wrote: »

I was an athiest untill I read on Boards that Atheism could be regarded as a form of belief so now am back to a full fledged Agnostic!

The only people who regard atheism as a belief system are religious believers trying to make out that it takes as much faith to not believe that some Jewish guy walked on water as to believe it.

gaynorvader

Atheism is only a belief if you believe that a god absolutely cannot exist, which is actually anti-theism. I realise that that's contradictory, but atheism is often made to include anyone who doesn't actively believe in a god.

iUseVi

*Sigh*

We've been through this atheist/agnostic/anti-theist thing so many times it makes me sick. We need new words or something.

Dave!

gaynorvader wrote: »

Atheism is only a belief if you believe that a god absolutely cannot exist, which is actually anti-theism. I realise that that's contradictory, but atheism is often made to include anyone who doesn't actively believe in a god.

gaynorvader

That hurts Dave!

I meant that the term atheism is often incorrectly used as a blanket term for anyone who doesn't believe in a god. And even if you take this definition of atheism to be true, there are only a tiny amount of people in this category who would say that there is a 100% certainty that there is no god of any kind. If there is no room left for doubt, it's a belief.

rugbyman

liamw wrote: »

So your belief or lack of belief hasn't changed but you've changed your title?

And why did you believe whoever told you that athiesm was a belief system?

thank you for your reply,

I believe this is a dissertation on words.
if your reply was serious,

yes i have temporarily changed my title. the suggestion that Athiesm was a belief group, crazy though it seemed, intrigued me. Hair splitting perhaps. reminds me of theologians debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
regards Rugbyman

iUseVi

gaynorvader wrote: »

That hurts Dave!

I meant that the term atheism is often incorrectly used as a blanket term for anyone who doesn't believe in a god. And even if you take this definition of atheism to be true, there are only a tiny amount of people in this category who would say that there is a 100% certainty that there is no god of any kind. If there is no room left for doubt, it's a belief.

This is technically true, but like you say theres not many who are 100% certain there is no god. Just 99.9% instead, which for practical purposes is the same thing.

rugbyman

Dades wrote: »

Let me get this straight - you reverted from being an atheist to an agnostic because someone on boards described atheism as a belief? Isn't atheism a lack of belief?

And surely the term "full fledged agnostic" is an oxymoron. :pac:

As I typed the words, I had reservations,( no I am not a reincarnated Red Indian)
Regards, Rugbyman

iUseVi

rugbyman wrote: »

yes i have temporarily changed my title. the suggestion that Athiesm was a belief group, crazy though it seemed, intrigued me. Hair splitting perhaps. reminds me of theologians debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
regards Rugbyman

Can I ask, why does the title concern you so much? Can you not just say you don't believe in God and leave it at that? If someone presses me for a label I will just say atheist. Its just simple, everyone knows broadly what that means and theres no confusion. If I said "agnostic" or "anti-theist"there would be a certain proportion of people who would not be sure of that and would need it explained to them.

rugbyman

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The only people who regard atheism as a belief system are religious believers trying to make out that it takes as much faith to not believe that some Jewish guy walked on water as to believe it.

i have read much of your stuff and admire it.
am now trying to work that one out.

Just came into my head, an Athiest( my def) is some one who is certain there is no proof that a God exists . I am one of those , but if I am in a group of athiests then I am in a group with a common belief.( even though it is a belief in nothing)

Regards,Rugbyman

rugbyman

iUseVi wrote: »

Can I ask, why does the title concern you so much? Can you not just say you don't believe in God and leave it at that? If someone presses me for a label I will just say atheist. Its just simple, everyone knows broadly what that means and theres no confusion. If I said "agnostic" or "anti-theist"there would be a certain proportion of people who would not be sure of that and would need it explained to them.

Its not a big thing with me, certainly did not mean to split hairs. i agree Athiest is the simplest description.
rugbyman

gaynorvader

rugbyman wrote: »

i have read much of your stuff and admire it.
am now trying to work that one out.

Just came into my head, an Athiest( my def) is some one who is certain there is no proof that a God exists . I am one of those , but if I am in a group of athiests then I am in a group with a common belief.( even though it is a belief in nothing)

An atheist is someone who does not believe or disbelieve in a god as they either deem the question irrelevant or have not seen any substantial evidence.

An anti-theist is someone who is certain in their own mind that there is no god.

iUseVi

An atheist is someone who can balance a pineapple on their head and juggle flaming torches at the same time.

Dades

gaynorvader wrote: »

And even if you take this definition of atheism to be true, there are only a tiny amount of people in this category who would say that there is a 100% certainty that there is no god of any kind. If there is no room left for doubt, it's a belief.

I don't doubt the gods of religions are non-existent, however I would never say there is a 100% certainty that there is no god of any kind. How could I? I can't even say that for unicorns.

Using word play to compare a "belief" that there are no gods, to a "belief" in a god is just disingenuous semantics. As they say, atheism is a faith like bald is a hair colour.

@rugbyman - beware of us hair-splitters in here.

gaynorvader

Dades wrote: »

I don't doubt the gods of religions are non-existent, however I would never say there is a 100% certainty that there is no god of any kind. How could I? I can't even say that for unicorns.

Using word play to compare a "belief" that there are no gods, to a "belief" in a god is just disingenuous semantics. As they say, atheism is a faith like bald is a hair colour.

@rugbyman - beware of us hair-splitters in here.

And I agree, that's what I was trying to get across. Anti-theism is a belief, atheism isn't.

rugbyman

gaynorvader wrote: »

An atheist is someone who does not believe or disbelieve in a god as they either deem the question irrelevant or have not seen any substantial evidence.

An anti-theist is someone who is certain in their own mind that there is no god.

Thank you, dont mean to be frivolous, but both of those describe me.
I am certainly the latter because of the former.
Rugbyman

am abroad ( thats in a foreign country, not dressed up as a woman)this week, just spent four hours in a web cafe.

Sam Vimes

rugbyman wrote: »

i have read much of your stuff and admire it.

well thank you

rugbyman wrote: »

am now trying to work that one out.

Just came into my head, an Athiest( my def) is some one who is certain there is no proof that a God exists . I am one of those , but if I am in a group of athiests then I am in a group with a common belief.( even though it is a belief in nothing)

Regards,Rugbyman

I wouldn't say certain. If I was certain there was no proof I'd stop looking but I'm always open to the possibility of proof being presented. It's just that until it's presented I see no more reason to believe a story about a guy walking on water than a story about a guy being visited by an angel. For me it's not even about a metaphysical concept of a being that may or may not exist outside the universe and may or may not have created it, such a being is completely irrelevant even if it does exist. What matters is which religion if any has it right and if I see nothing that suggests one is any more likely to be true than any other then I reject them all and become an atheist by default.

hiorta

I would take the view that re-incarnation was both possible and logical.
First however, what part of us can/ does re-incarnate?
Can all of our parts be 're-issued'?
Before that, what exactly are we?

Flamed Diving

Can someone answer me this. If people can be reincarnated or if this is believed to be logical. Why not grass?

Turtwig

rugbyman wrote: »

Atheism could be regarded as a form of belief so now am back to a full fledged Agnostic!

*Grabs a stick*
*Starts hitting rugbyman with it*

Atheism is NOT a belief!

Edit : Feck! In my snappyness I missed an entire line page of posts.

liamw

Q. How do you piss off a group of atheists?
A. Tell them that atheism is a belief and requires faith.

Dades

gaynorvader wrote: »

And I agree, that's what I was trying to get across. Anti-theism is a belief, atheism isn't.

An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a God."

If it's a "belief", it's only a belief that religion is a negative influence on mankind, which doesn't require "faith" - only an opinion.

Mark Hamill

gaynorvader wrote: »

Evidence is not necessary for the creation of an idea, only for putting belief into it.

Technically only inspiration is required for the creation of an idea, evidence is just what you need for the idea to be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain.

gaynorvader wrote: »

And in that case, the athlete's spirit would be in a state of weakness. A person's energy level comes back at different speeds and can be higher than someone else's can be. The idea that a person's energy is their soul is an hypothesis I've been developing to explain religion's idea that there is a soul. It's merely an intellectual diversion down the path of 'what if'.

But it doesnt fit. You are trying to shoe horn the idea of a soul onto someones metabolism-the thing that defines an energy level. But to say that an energy level is a soul would be like saying a cars fuel level is their soul-its not, I could suck the fat out of one person, take their organs too (heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, etc) and put them in someone elses body but nothing representing the personality of the first person will be put into the second persons body.

gaynorvader wrote: »

But you believe you have no control over the processes of your body?

I have no control over a lot of my digestion process, a lot of my respiration process, over the chemical process of burning up energy in my body. People dont have as much control over their own bodies as they might think

gaynorvader wrote: »

And some day, your energy, that made up your being will make up the being of someone/something else.

But the conditions that make up me, my personality, will not, as trying to replicate the exact position and movement of every molecule and neuron in my brain is impossible. The matter that makes up me one day was was part of fruit or vegtables or animals, but just because I ate a cereal this morning doesn't make me part cheerio.

liamw

Mark Hamill wrote: »

but just because I ate a cereal this morning doesn't make me part cheerio.

great analogy :pac:

gaynorvader

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Technically only inspiration is required for the creation of an idea, evidence is just what you need for the idea to be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain.

True, and you've already convinced me many posts back that my spirit is the energy in the body idea either needs a lot more thought or to be abandoned altogether.

Mark Hamill wrote:

But it doesnt fit. You are trying to shoe horn the idea of a soul onto someones metabolism-the thing that defines an energy level. But to say that an energy level is a soul would be like saying a cars fuel level is their soul-its not, I could suck the fat out of one person, take their organs too (heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, etc) and put them in someone elses body but nothing representing the personality of the first person will be put into the second persons body.

I have said over and over again that in my hypothesis fat is not part of the soul, is merely used by it to replenish energy. I was more thinking that the soul is some core part of the energy that makes up your being.

Mark Hamill wrote:

I have no control over a lot of my digestion process, a lot of my respiration process, over the chemical process of burning up energy in my body. People dont have as much control over their own bodies as they might think

It is possible for people to achieve control over some of these bodily functions with deep meditation.

Mark Hamill wrote:

But the conditions that make up me, my personality, will not, as trying to replicate the exact position and movement of every molecule and neuron in my brain is impossible. The matter that makes up me one day was was part of fruit or vegtables or animals, but just because I ate a cereal this morning doesn't make me part cheerio.

But who you are now differs from who you were when you were born and who you will be twenty years from now. Suppose that memories aren't carried over, just some core thing that makes you you, so that if this core thing were put in a newborn baby and it experienced the exact same conditions you have, it would turn out to be exactly like you.

liamw

gaynorvader, where was your 'soul' before you were born?
Why do you think this has to live on after you die... Why can't it be just like it was before you were born?

Mark Hamill

gaynorvader wrote: »

I have said over and over again that in my hypothesis fat is not part of the soul, is merely used by it to replenish energy. I was more thinking that the soul is some core part of the energy that makes up your being.

But the energy that makes up your being comes from the fa. Do you think there is some part of the energy in your body that is always there when you are alive? That never gets replaced by the energy you consume in the form of fat and sugars? Because thats how it works, all the energy in your body is being used up all the time and its being replaced with energy you egt from the food you consume.

gaynorvader wrote: »

It is possible for people to achieve control over some of these bodily functions with deep meditation.

Some of the these functions maybe, but not nearly all.

gaynorvader wrote: »

But who you are now differs from who you were when you were born and who you will be twenty years from now.

Which just points to the lack of some unchanging always-there essence in people though, doesn't it? As I said above, the energy in your body is constantly being replaced, even all the molecules in your organs and bones are replaced over time (I read that your entre skeleton mass is replaced every 10 to 25 years), there is nothing unique of your physical body that remains your whole life, and nothing unique of your emotional, mental essence that remains after you die.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Suppose that memories aren't carried over, just some core thing that makes you you, so that if this core thing were put in a newborn baby and it experienced the exact same conditions you have, it would turn out to be exactly like you.

Not necessarily. If the baby where left handed (I am right handed) it may favour taking the left turn at a junction where I might have favoured taking the right. With all the wondering I've done in shops and holidays and just walking around, that will result in a massive amount of different choices the baby will make than I would, resulting in a different person. There is nothing you could take from me and transplant in someone else that will result in part of my consciousness or essence being in them, as I am a result of the exact configuration of my body at a particular point in time and that cannot be re enacted at a different time.

Undergod

gaynorvader wrote: »

Suppose that memories aren't carried over, just some core thing that makes you you, so that if this core thing were put in a newborn baby and it experienced the exact same conditions you have, it would turn out to be exactly like you.

But if memories aren't the core of what makes me me, then what is?
I'd imagine nearly any newborn put under the exact (as in, completley exact) same conditions would turn out the same. Perhaps there'd be some change according to genetic predispositions.

As far as I'm concerned, my memories and personality are what make up me. Unless reincarnation involves preservation of these, then as far as I'm concerned it cannot happen in any meaningful way.

ItisintheSTARS

Sam Vimes wrote: »

well thank you


I wouldn't say certain. If I was certain there was no proof I'd stop looking but I'm always open to the possibility of proof being presented. It's just that until it's presented I see no more reason to believe a story about a guy walking on water than a story about a guy being visited by an angel. For me it's not even about a metaphysical concept of a being that may or may not exist outside the universe and may or may not have created it, such a being is completely irrelevant even if it does exist. What matters is which religion if any has it right and if I see nothing that suggests one is any more likely to be true than any other then I reject them all and become an atheist by default.

There are so many non senses here ,but before I sign off ,since you sound
'real' I will say that there is unquestionable 'proof' that the universe is lawful',that in ancient India, they saw Astrology as showing the laws of God, that evolution is true,that creationism is too,but neither of those groups have the whole picture.
I am not saying more for the moment,because it is the internet,but will be in Ireland to explain later in the year.

Good luck.