Talkin' about Reincarnation

People have been asking me about the whole reincarnation idea. Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it good? Is it bad?

Here are the 4 leading theories regarding reincarnation.

1) It doesn't exist. Reincarnation is a load of ruminant excrement and has no factual basis in reality.

2) Everything recycles, including souls. The natural and eternal order of existence demands that we get reborn over and over eternally. It's just the way of things.

3) This world is one of many worlds and after we die we can choose to return to it for another go, or wander off into other planes of existence and live there. It is up to us.

4) Reincarnation is a 'second chance', in a way, of doing a better job and raising our spiritual level. The ultimate goal should be to break free of the cycle of reincarnation and join/rejoin the 'Godhead'/Spiritual Community/Ultimate Existence.

Comments

Log in to Comment

ngfan14 2008-06-01 22:07:41

1) is the right one.

CaiWengi 2008-06-02 16:54:03

In the modern day lack of proof equals proof

For example lack of proof that reincarnation does not exist, prooves it does not exist,

At the very least we can say 'well until there is proof Im not going to believe that'

However unfoutunately people are stupid.

ThePeasant 2008-06-02 16:54:03

To quote myself,

"Believing is to be uncertain; Knowing is to be ignorant."

CaiWengi 2008-06-08 16:14:19

Ignorant of what? Believing in reincarnation is ignorant. Ignoring facts and believing only wild claims

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Where is your extraordinary proof? Or any proof for that matter?

Until we have this proof, it is idiotic to belive in reincarnation

ThePeasant 2008-06-08 16:14:19

Prove to me that proof is required to believe.

CaiWengi 2008-06-13 10:27:59

Obviously proof is not required to belive, look at the billions of religious idiots. But for anyone with any sense or logic, proof is required

ThePeasant 2008-06-13 10:27:59 (Updated 2008-06-14 14:39:03)

why is that so? Why is it logical to require proof? Give me a logical argument which proves that proof is required to logically believe.

Here's a logical argument for why proof is not necessary to believe.

It is a logical truth that one statement cannot be used to prove itself. Doing so is called 'circular reasoning'. For example, to say 'the sky is blue because I perceive the sky as blue and I perceive the sky as blue because it is in fact blue' is circular reasoning and a fallacy.

When it comes to Intuition there are no rules or fallacies. One knows simply because one knows.

Now, lets say hypothetically that Intuition claims superiority over other methods of proof. How? Because it knows it is superior. Period. Since there are no fallacies in Intuition, this knowledge is pure.

Lets say, hypothetically, Logic could prove that it is superior through logical means. It doesn't matter what the argument is, this argument would not be valid because it breaks logic's own rule that one should not engage in circular reasoning.

This means that logic does not have any proof that it is more valid than intuition and, since intuition both claims itself superior and has its methods remaining logically consistent, intuition wins out and the superior method of proof.

Now, say hypothetically that a person's intuition tells him that Logic is superior to Intuition. We arrive at a slightly different situation. Here, it is proven through external means that logic is superior. But the validity of logic would be, in this case, entirely dependant on the validity of the intuition that leads this person to the belief in logical superiority. Thus, in this case, intuition is the base from which logic is valid. If one were to say that intuition is NOT a valid method of proof then they would have to throw out all belief that logic is valid as well, since the base on which the validity of logic would thus be denied.

This proves, logically, that intuition is in fact more valid as a method of proof that logic. This is so because the validity of logic, if there is any, is entirely dependant on the validity of intuition.

CaiWengi 2008-06-15 08:32:28

'For example, to say 'the sky is blue because I perceive the sky as blue and I perceive the sky as blue because it is in fact blue' is circular reasoning and a fallacy.'

Every heard of the scientific method? If you take the observation the sky to be blue, and there is no other proof to tell you otherwise, it is safe to assume that the sky is blue. Something simply being circular reasoning does not mean it is wrong.

'When it comes to Intuition there are no rules or fallacies. One knows simply because one knows.'

This is ridiculous. One knows simply because one knows? Is that why people 'knew' the earth was flat and the sun went around it? There are no fallacies? So people are always right on what they first think? As this statement is quite clearly rubbish, the whole rest of your response is irrelevant. Dont presume 'intuition' is true, and I will think the same, without some sort of reasoning. I know you were talking hypothetically, but it doesnt assist the argument to think of wild and fanciful statements that prove nothing.

Even if I accepted logic is wrong, which I do not, you have yet to prove to me that intuition is any better.

ThePeasant 2008-06-15 08:32:28

try again ;)

CaiWengi 2008-06-18 12:54:59

Chrono trigger is amazing, jesus christ. That courtroom scene almost killed me with awesomeness

So yeh ive got more important things in my life then philosophy right now :P

ThePeasant 2008-06-18 12:54:59

I told you to be careful! The awesomeness of the SNES is far too great for the youth of today to handle.

I'm glad you're enjoying yourself. Come back when you feel like thinking all twisty again.