What Evidence Would Be Sufficient To Prove Reincarnation? - Page 4

Akhenaten · 11th July 2010, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by stanfr

Never say Never if you are a true skeptic.

A true skeptic would Never try to use an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.

Your kilt needs adjustment.

dafydd · 11th July 2010, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

A good response laca, but needs more bold 36-point red text. And maybe a blink tag or two.

When you see the different sized fonts and the colours,then you know that the thread has kicked the bucket.

caniswalensis · 11th July 2010, 07:32 AM

Hi All,

I have some additional thoughts, although the temperature in this kitchen is running high enough that I question whether I can take the heat.

On "anomolous information:"

With a little more thought, I have adapted my view on this. Even if someone can objectively prove beyond doubt, that they hold anomolous information, it still does not specifically prove reincarnation. There are other, perhaps equally far-fetched hypothesis that could predict anomolous information. A few spring to mind: racial memory, thought transference across time, and possesion. Each of these ideas also predicts anomolous information. I am sure we could all think of more that are both fun to believe in and unfalsifiable.

On "talking babies:"

While the absence of talking or otherwise talented babies may seem to falsify any theory or reincarnation, there may be a reason why can not depend on this as evidence against. I believe there are actual physiological reasons why an infant could not speak words or perform other complicated actions like painting. An infant or toddler may not have the muscular strength or motor control nessesary to do these things. Think of someone that has had a stroke. They know how to speak, but have lost a lifetime's worth of practice at doing so. Their motor skills have been wiped out and they must relearn them. Not sure if this applies or not. I am hoping that someone with more knowledge of such things will chime in on this. A common belief about reincarnation is that the older one gets, the less they will be able to remember of their past life, so it could be said that by the time one has the physical ability to speak and paint or whatever, they have lost the knowledge of how to do so.

On "what's the point:"

It would seem rather pointless to reincarnate if you don't remember anything and can't learn from it. There are problems with making this argument to believers though. The idea is that the learning is not for you in this lifetime. In fact, we are probably only here now because we need to learn more. A common belief is that it is your soul that must learn form all its lives. When your soul is disincarnate, many people believe that it is fully aware of and fully remembers all its lives.

It is easy to see how carefully honed this belief is against being falsified. Since reincarnation is undetectable and to an extent undefined, it is unfalsifiable.

As others have said in this thread, to prove reincarnation would first require proof of the existence of the soul. Then perhaps some sort of "soul fingerprint kit" could be developed. Probably won't happen in this lifetime.

I think the best way to discuss this topic with a believer would be to introduce the concepts of "evidence vs. proof" and "objective vs. subjective" to them if they are not already familiar with them. Then rather than telling them what sort of evidence could prove it scientifically (which will probably be unreasonable in their mind) Discuss with them why they believe in it. When they outline their evidences, demonstrate the subjectiveness of them by offering alternative paranormal hypothesis for each one. By doing that, you will show them that they are making assumptions based on their personal bias. Let them do the math themselves and it is a much easier pill to swallow.

Example: B: "I believe in reincarnation because there's a kid that has detailed knowledge of a WWII pilots life that he has no way of knowing." S: "Perhaps that kid is actualy psychic and touched an object that belonged to that pilot. How do we know which is the answer."

Now, chances are the story of the kid is not true anyway, but instead of just denying their "evidence" it is better to show them why it does not prove anything. Needless to say, this dialogue needs to be a friendly & respectful discussion if it is to have any positive effect on the believer.

Regards, Canis

PixyMisa · 11th July 2010, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by stanfr

Illiadus, please ignore the "you're wrong" insults that dominate this forum (which is why i rarely participate).

Insult? Are you serious?

Illiadus has repeatedly misrepresented what people have posted in this very thread. That's what he's wrong about.

Quote:

" I am not saying, I have never said, no-one here has ever said, that we would not accept the evidence if it were provided. We are saying that the evidence will never be provided."

This is not skepticism, it's close-mindedness, pure and simple.

That's not a response, that's baloney.

We know perfectly well that reincarnation does not happen, in the same way that we know perfectly well that the world isn't flat, and that babies aren't delivered by storks. It simply isn't true. There's no need to hold back here. It's not true, it never will be true, and no evidence will ever be presented that will change these facts.

It's not me who's closed-minded here, it's the reincarnationists, desperately rejecting every part of reality to cling to this irrational belief.

fromdownunder · 11th July 2010, 07:53 AM

I assume that everyone who has responded to this thread is familiar with the Bridey Murphy case, which has been falsified to my, and most people's satisfaction.

This case of "reincarnation" is probably as famous as it gets, and has been pretty well debunked. So, if nothing better than this can be brought to the table, it really is all over.

I think the key word, as many have stated is "evidence", There is none.

Norm

Pup · 11th July 2010, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by stanfr

To answer your question, i'd have to go with the anomolous info group for a start. Im not familiar with the case, but for example if the person who showed the archaeologist the undiscovered info had been accompanied the whole time by a team of independent skeptics who closely scrutinized the process from start to finish, that would be a small start. There would have to be a bunch of other cases to build on that. I dont think the idea that "this doesnt necessarily prove reincarnation--could be mediumship or remote viewing etc etc" is valid since obvioulsy the person giving the info is not claiming any of those alternative theories.

I don't think it's as simple and straightforward as going with the person's claim, though.

Concerning archaelogical/historical stuff... Got a story for you.

Let's say a person is shown a one-of-a-kind, hand-made dress made by an ordinary (not recognizably famous) seamstress from the mid 19th century. They've never seen the dress before, and they're no closer than 15 feet.

Let's say the fact they never saw it before can be proven--don't know how, but let's take for granted that they really never have. Let's say we can also prove they've never seen any other dress by the same dressmaker and they have no other information about the dress or the dressmaker. There's no slight of hand or mirrors or trickery or collusion.

The person claims to be the reincarnation of the dressmaker and remembers making that dress. Their proof is they can tell the color, fiber and weave of the lining, what stitches were used on the inside, and all the interior construction details like which way the seam allowances were ironed, whether there's any boning and what material the boning is made of--without ever seeing anything but the outside of the dress from across the room.

After that's all told, everyone examines the inside of the dress. The answers aren't 100% correct but they're way, way better than chance, up there around 90%--well within the range of what a real dressmaker could remember about a dress she made a couple years ago.

If, hypothetically, we could prove all the above facts were true, would you consider that an example of good evidence for reincarnation? Is it primarily evidence of reincarnation (and not something else) because the person making the claim says they lived before as the dressmaker, and that's why they can do what they did?

Because I did that.

The only thing I didn't include was the claim to be a reincarnation of the dress-maker, but that would have only required another sentence or two and some acting ability. I could also have switched the claim to remote viewing or mediumship, with a different sentence or two and equal acting ability.

Rodney · 11th July 2010, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

We know perfectly well that reincarnation does not happen . . .
It's not me who's closed-minded here.

PixyMisa · 11th July 2010, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Rodney

Suitably inane.

We know perfectly well that reincarnation does not happen because (a) it contradicts the entirety of scientific knowledge, and (b) there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.

As I keep pointing out, it's impossible and does not happen, and these are two different statements.

I'll state it again: We are not being closed-minded in categorically rejecting the notion of reincarnation and inferring that, since it is impossible and does not happen, no evidence supporting reincarnation will ever be presented.

The people being closed-minded are the ones who reject all contrary evidence to cling to their belief in reincarnation. That's the very definition of closed-mindedness.

This ridiculous trope that skeptics are closed-minded because they don't allow sufficient wiggle-room for someone's pet imbecility is nothing more than intellectual laziness.

Aepervius · 11th July 2010, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Rodney

You know very well what was meant with that. I have YET to see a believer be open to their pet woo being inexistant. Like for example, some of them being open to the idea ganzfeld is utter bunk.

@caniswalensis I brought the same argument about motor skill on the tongue, but that argument do NOT hold for motor skill of the hand. Baby could manipulate cubes with letters on them or at least point and wave the arm toward them, and form a compelte sentence or even, an essay on what their past life was.

But that is never what is proposed as "evidence" for reincarnation.

I have to go with pixymisa here, there is no evidence of reacincarnation because reincarnation DO NOT exists, and if it did, the whole world would be different.

The only way around that is to pretend the reincarnated one lose all his/her memory, and then at that point you could as well say you start from a clean slate is about as logic as reincarnation.

manxman · 11th July 2010, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

A three-year old in a sweet little lispy voice providing the Swiss bank account number in which we find the trillion dollars he stole in his previous life time.

Wont that require bush senior or chenney expiring firstly.

Sun Countess · 11th July 2010, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Illiadus

I agree with Iaca's statement that there can be no "precise and specific definition that will satisfy most skeptics" without a clear definition of reincarnation.

Does anyone have a suggestion on how to resolve that issue or is that impossible?

Why do I need a clear definition of reincarnation anymore than I need a clear definition of Yahweh or homeopathy? It's all utter nonsense, and from where I see the believers in any of those three things have definitions which vary considerably amongst themselves.

Go to a reincarnation board if you want a definition. Does it all boil down to moles and birthmarks or some ill-defined personality traits being passed from one person to another? Is there a genetic component? Who knows? Who cares? The people concocting these theories are grasping at invisible straws. There's no credible evidence of reincarnation at this point in time. Absolutely none.

If it were happening in a way that actually impacted people, we would have evidence of it by now. It's either not happening at all, or it's happening in a way that can't be measured.

The more you protest, Illiadus, the more I get the sense you'd like to find a way to prove reincarnation is really really true, but those meanie skeptics aren't even willing to help you with your homework. Sorry if I've mischaracterized, but I wonder why you care about such a silly topic so darn much.

caniswalensis · 11th July 2010, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

@caniswalensis I brought the same argument about motor skill on the tongue, but that argument do NOT hold for motor skill of the hand. Baby could manipulate cubes with letters on them or at least point and wave the arm toward them, and form a compelte sentence or even, an essay on what their past life was.

Good thinking! That essay would take a lot of blocks, to be sure.

Believers might answer this by saying that people are not normally born with a complete memory of their past life, though.

In the end, the lack of babies that compose block essays is not enough to disprove reincarnation.

Regards, Canis

PixyMisa · 11th July 2010, 08:19 AM

True enough. If ever you get a coherent definition and point out that by that definition, the claimed event does not happen, the Retreat to Unfalsifiability kicks into gear.

sadhatter · 11th July 2010, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Illiadus

Well, Sadhatter, I believe that the existing so called "evidence" for reincarnation that we've all heard of -- hypnosis, the pilot boy, Stevenson, et c -- that none of it is conclusive/worth ****, but a lot of people take it as being scientifically valid.

However, if me or anyone is going to convince said people that they're wrong, I need to be able to say: "This would convince a skeptic, not what you have now."

If I tell them, and yes I talk to woos, that the skeptical community requires talking babies composing operas in the womb, or that it can't be proven at all, then the dialog is over. Do you understand? It's not about convincing anyone here about anything! Do you understand that I don't believe in reincarnation? Am I getting through at all?

Just as i thought a thinly veiled " your asking for too much proof" thread.

As a skeptic, what would convince you of reincarnation then? What would be valid scientific proof to you? If you are indeed a skeptic, why in the heck do you need our opinion of what constitutes proof? That doesn't make sense, that would be like if a black friend asks me " what does a white guy think of the show the boondocks?" and i then proceed to have to call other white people and get their views on the show.

Within the claims made bby reincarnation a child of a few weeks old talking is perfectly reasonable. The concept is that memories and a soul are transferred, why are these memories never speech? Or math, or engineering? But wait, they sometimes are. But only when a child would be able to learn them. If that doesn't reek to high heaven of flim flam to you, i doubt your skepticality.

Gord_in_Toronto · 11th July 2010, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by manxman

Wont that require bush senior or chenney expiring firstly.

Unfortunately, there are quite a few other candidates.

Le Jab · 11th July 2010, 10:02 AM

As a hypnotherapist, I can honestly state that in my experience, that recall under hypnosis is notoriously unreliable. False memory syndrome puts a huge question mark after any statement made during regressive therapy. I have done very little past life regression, but I know from my practice that information provided about previous experiences has to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Freud gave up on repressed memory hypnosis as a disproportionate number of subjects were claiming sexual abuse.
I use hypnosis with sports people, and whilst under hypnosis, I asked an athlete to re-live an experience of when he was successful. He went on to tell in me in explicit detail about winning a national title at 14 yrs, and even described the cup and his acceptance speech for 'athlete of the year'. So theres me getting him to 'anchor' those feelings of success in order to re-experience them at points in competition when needed, only to find out that it was a completely fabricated story !
My past life regression attempts have had the normal stuff - Tutenkhamen's body guard etc. (When asked to speak in his native tongue, he spoke English with an Arabic-type accent !)
Hypnosis regression is fun, and no more than an elaborate parlour game.

Gord_in_Toronto · 11th July 2010, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Le Jab

As a hypnotherapist, I can honestly state that in my experience, that recall under hypnosis is notoriously unreliable. False memory syndrome puts a huge question mark after any statement made during regressive therapy. I have done very little past life regression, but I know from my practice that information provided about previous experiences has to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Freud gave up on repressed memory hypnosis as a disproportionate number of subjects were claiming sexual abuse.
I use hypnosis with sports people, and whilst under hypnosis, I asked an athlete to re-live an experience of when he was successful. He went on to tell in me in explicit detail about winning a national title at 14 yrs, and even described the cup and his acceptance speech for 'athlete of the year'. So theres me getting him to 'anchor' those feelings of success in order to re-experience them at points in competition when needed, only to find out that it was a completely fabricated story !
My past life regression attempts have had the normal stuff - Tutenkhamen's body guard etc. (When asked to speak in his native tongue, he spoke English with an Arabic-type accent !)
Hypnosis regression is fun, and no more than an elaborate parlour game.

Welcome to the Forum Le Jab.

Nice post and I have nominated it for its direct experience.

Gord_in_Toronto · 11th July 2010, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Le Jab

As a hypnotherapist, I can honestly state that in my experience, that recall under hypnosis is notoriously unreliable. False memory syndrome puts a huge question mark after any statement made during regressive therapy. I have done very little past life regression, but I know from my practice that information provided about previous experiences has to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Freud gave up on repressed memory hypnosis as a disproportionate number of subjects were claiming sexual abuse.
I use hypnosis with sports people, and whilst under hypnosis, I asked an athlete to re-live an experience of when he was successful. He went on to tell in me in explicit detail about winning a national title at 14 yrs, and even described the cup and his acceptance speech for 'athlete of the year'. So theres me getting him to 'anchor' those feelings of success in order to re-experience them at points in competition when needed, only to find out that it was a completely fabricated story !
My past life regression attempts have had the normal stuff - Tutenkhamen's body guard etc. (When asked to speak in his native tongue, he spoke English with an Arabic-type accent !)
Hypnosis regression is fun, and no more than an elaborate parlour game.

Welcome to the Forum Le Jab.

Nice post and I have nominated it for its reporting based on direct experience.

jakesteele · 11th July 2010, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by RhodyDave

I would accept reincarnation as real if Illiadus and Sledge are reincarnated as each other...

That's cruel and heartless.

Marduk · 11th July 2010, 10:29 AM

What about Jesus, if he comes back does that prove reincarnation,
or just reincarnation for divine entities
once again it's one rule for us and another for them

SusanB-M1 · 11th July 2010, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Did you check behind the sofa?

I was posting it on a topic elsewhere. I tried to find the post containing it to quote it here, but gave up!!

Illiadus · 11th July 2010, 12:14 PM

For those new to this thread, which I started yesterday, I''m a skeptic who doesn't believe in reincarnation but who sometimes talk to people who believe in past lives in order to challenge the cases they, in their words, call 'proof'.

When I question the value of their evidence, I often get the response "well, you skeptics wouldn't accept reincarnation whatever proof we gave you". I tell them this isn't true, but I haven't been able to honestly say what would be acceptable to the majority of skeptics, only what I myself would demand from them.

To find out what other skeptics than myself would say, I posed a question and have so far received a great number of responses, some of which I've collected as a series of quotes in post #112, for those interested.

Thank you

Some late answers:

Akhenaten, I love brevity, but did your answer suggest it’s impossible to define reincarnation or did you mean that reincarnation is impossible? Please expand.

Paulhoff, I don’t need to prove there’s a soul, something I don’t even believe in, to have the right to ask questions to those who are kind enough to answer.

Edited by LashL:

Edited for civility. Please read the Membership Agreement and abide by it.

PixyMisa, you lovely thing, nobody can misrepresent what is said in the thread because it’s all there for everyone to read!

Pup, don’t just read a sentence here and there and jump to conclusions. I don’t believe in reincarnation and I’ve said it so many times and in so many posts now, it’s ridiculous. Also, what if reincarnation doesn’t give you the same genes? Aren’t you making huge assumptions?

CynicalSkeptic, I’m more interested in your definition, since I’m here to learn.

Stanfr, thanks for your answer.

Fromdownunder, 1) get a dictionary and look up reincarnation - whatever definition you find will be my definition as well. 2) Bridey *********** Murphy? Are you serious? G’day!

Sun Countess, if it's happening in a way that can't be measured, then you find a way to measure it - not you but someone of high intelligence and capability.

Sadhatter, it does reek to high heaven of flim flam to me, that’s why I talk to people who believe in reincarnation and try to make them see the error of their ways. Do you know who else thinks it’s worth the time and effort to dissuade woo-woos? Randi, whom the JREF is named after.

Le Jab, have you considered the possibility that you’re a useless hypnotist and that your subjects aren’t really hypnotized? Just thinking out loud.

Marduk, do you mean one rule for us mortals and one for divine entities?

SusanB-M1, just admit you made it up and all is forgiven.

Naddig74 · 11th July 2010, 12:16 PM

Oh, dude, you're gonna be real popular round here...

Paulhoff · 11th July 2010, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Illiadus

Paulhoff, I don’t need to prove there’s a soul, something I don’t even believe in, to have the right to ask questions to those who are kind enough to answer.

What is the title of this thread, and didn't you say you wanted to know what evidence would be sufficient to prove reincarnation. Prove first there is a soul.

Paul

Akhenaten · 11th July 2010, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Illiadus

Akhenaten, I love brevity, but did your answer suggest it’s impossible to define reincarnation or did you mean that reincarnation is impossible? Please expand.

R e i n c a r n a t i o n __ i s __ i m p o s s i b l e .

Illiadus · 11th July 2010, 12:28 PM

Paulhoff, you need to be more articulate in the future, but I understand now that you mean "prove the soul" as a method of proving reincarnation.

Does anyone else agree that proving there's a soul necessarily proves reincarnation, because I don't see why it would?

Marduk · 11th July 2010, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Illiadus

Marduk, do you mean one rule for us mortals and one for divine entities?

Theres no such thing as divine entities,

except for Geena Davis

Sideroxylon · 11th July 2010, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Illiadus

Paulhoff, you need to be more articulate in the future, but I understand now that you mean "prove the soul" as a method of proving reincarnation.

Does anyone else agree that proving there's a soul necessarily proves reincarnation, because I don't see why it would?

No, but its existence is a necessary condition for reincarnation to be possible.

Akhenaten · 11th July 2010, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Illiadus

Paulhoff, you need to be more articulate in the future, but I understand now that you mean "prove the soul" as a method of proving reincarnation.

Does anyone else agree that proving there's a soul necessarily proves reincarnation, because I don't see why it would?

1. Don't be so rude.

2. Paul's point is both perfectly clear and 100% correct.

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

No, but its existence is a necessary condition for reincarnation to be possible.

What you said.

Pup · 11th July 2010, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Illiadus

Pup, don’t just read a sentence here and there and jump to conclusions. I don’t believe in reincarnation and I’ve said it so many times and in so many posts now, it’s ridiculous. Also, what if reincarnation doesn’t give you the same genes? Aren’t you making huge assumptions?

Assuming you're referring to post #116 about the genes, of course I'm making a huge assumption. Well, I mean, I'm not really sincerely making it, I'm presenting it as a humorous exageration to show that any hypothesis about reincarnation involves huge assumptions, which first need pinned down before one can proceed.

What if reincarnation doesn't give you memories that carry over from one life to the next? Isn't that a huge assumption too?

Sun Countess · 11th July 2010, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by Illiadus

Paulhoff, you need to be more articulate in the future, but I understand now that you mean "prove the soul" as a method of proving reincarnation.

Does anyone else agree that proving there's a soul necessarily proves reincarnation, because I don't see why it would?

Nobody here believes that, including Paulhoff, who said nothing of the sort.

The existence of an unseen entity called a soul is just a first step. If there's no soul, then there's nothing to reincarnate. No soul = No reincarnation.

If there is a soul, then that opens a slew of possibilities. Where do they come from? Where do they go? Nearly half the planet believes that their souls will go on to an afterlife. Most of those don't believe in reincarnation.

It's a first step toward reincarnation even being a possibility, but it's certainly not the only step.

With so many people hinging their entire lives on the existence of their soul, you'd think one of them would have proven it by now. Until then, I'm not going to believe in their existence any more than I believe in the existence of gods, pixies, or orbiting teacups.

Illiadus · 11th July 2010, 12:55 PM

Marduk, I was joking.

Illiadus · 11th July 2010, 12:58 PM

Yes, that too is a huge assumption, Pup.

Paulhoff · 11th July 2010, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Illiadus

Paulhoff, you need to be more articulate in the future, but I understand now that you mean "prove the soul" as a method of proving reincarnation.

Does anyone else agree that proving there's a soul necessarily proves reincarnation, because I don't see why it would?

Yes, some do need to be hit on the head many times to get a simple idea.

Paul

Illiadus · 11th July 2010, 12:59 PM

Some people here are assuming reincarnation would require a soul. As a skeptic, I don't jump to such conclusions.

Sideroxylon · 11th July 2010, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Illiadus

Some people here are assuming reincarnation would require a soul. As a skeptic, I don't jump to such conclusions.

I reckon pretty much any means that you can come up with of preserving the information of the conscious mind and then having that reborn into another person would attract the label of soul.

Paulhoff · 11th July 2010, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Illiadus

Some people here are assuming reincarnation would require a soul. As a skeptic, I don't jump to such conclusions.

Oh, and how else would it be. Something that isn't of this universe would have to make the jump from one body to another, and you can name it anything you want, but soul would fit the bill.

Paul

Akhenaten · 11th July 2010, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Illiadus

Some people here are assuming reincarnation would require a soul. As a skeptic, I don't jump to such conclusions.

What then are you proposing as a vehicle for whatever it is that continues from one life to the next?

Sun Countess · 11th July 2010, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Illiadus

Some people here are assuming reincarnation would require a soul. As a skeptic, I don't jump to such conclusions.

Then what exactly is being reincarnated? Genetic material? Birthmarks? Similar facial structures?

Maybe you really do need to go back to your reincarnation boards where you're spending time "debunking" and ask the enthusiasts what they think is being reincarnated. From everything I've read about the subject, they believe that a soul or consciousness is being reincarnated from one body into another.

aggle-rithm · 11th July 2010, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Illiadus

For those new to this thread, which I started yesterday, I''m a skeptic who doesn't believe in reincarnation but who sometimes talk to people who believe in past lives in order to challenge the cases they, in their words, call 'proof'.

When I question the value of their evidence, I often get the response "well, you skeptics wouldn't accept reincarnation whatever proof we gave you". I tell them this isn't true, but I haven't been able to honestly say what would be acceptable to the majority of skeptics, only what I myself would demand from them.

To find out what other skeptics than myself would say, I posed a question and have so far received a great number of responses, some of which I've collected as a series of quotes in post #112, for those interested.

Thank you

Some late answers:

Akhenaten, I love brevity, but did your answer suggest it’s impossible to define reincarnation or did you mean that reincarnation is impossible? Please expand.

Paulhoff, I don’t need to prove there’s a soul, something I don’t even believe in, to have the right to ask questions to those who are kind enough to answer.

PixyMisa, you lovely thing, nobody can misrepresent what is said in the thread because it’s all there for everyone to read!

Pup, don’t just read a sentence here and there and jump to conclusions. I don’t believe in reincarnation and I’ve said it so many times and in so many posts now, it’s ridiculous. Also, what if reincarnation doesn’t give you the same genes? Aren’t you making huge assumptions?

CynicalSkeptic, I’m more interested in your definition, since I’m here to learn.

Stanfr, thanks for your answer.

Fromdownunder, 1) get a dictionary and look up reincarnation - whatever definition you find will be my definition as well. 2) Bridey *********** Murphy? Are you serious? G’day!

Sun Countess, if it's happening in a way that can't be measured, then you find a way to measure it - not you but someone of high intelligence and capability.

Sadhatter, it does reek to high heaven of flim flam to me, that’s why I talk to people who believe in reincarnation and try to make them see the error of their ways. Do you know who else thinks it’s worth the time and effort to dissuade woo-woos? Randi, whom the JREF is named after.

Le Jab, have you considered the possibility that you’re a useless hypnotist and that your subjects aren’t really hypnotized? Just thinking out loud.

Marduk, do you mean one rule for us mortals and one for divine entities?

SusanB-M1, just admit you made it up and all is forgiven.

Hey, I participated too. Why wasn't I insulted?

11th July 2010, 07:12 AM	#121
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,682	Originally Posted by stanfr Never say Never if you are a true skeptic. A true skeptic would Never try to use an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. Your kilt needs adjustment.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

11th July 2010, 07:39 AM	#124
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,914	Originally Posted by stanfr Illiadus, please ignore the "you're wrong" insults that dominate this forum (which is why i rarely participate). Insult? Are you serious? Illiadus has repeatedly misrepresented what people have posted in this very thread. That's what he's wrong about. Quote: " I am not saying, I have never said, no-one here has ever said, that we would not accept the evidence if it were provided. We are saying that the evidence will never be provided." This is not skepticism, it's close-mindedness, pure and simple. That's not a response, that's baloney. We know perfectly well that reincarnation does not happen, in the same way that we know perfectly well that the world isn't flat, and that babies aren't delivered by storks. It simply isn't true. There's no need to hold back here. It's not true, it never will be true, and no evidence will ever be presented that will change these facts. It's not me who's closed-minded here, it's the reincarnationists, desperately rejecting every part of reality to cling to this irrational belief.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

11th July 2010, 07:58 AM	#126
Pup Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,590	Originally Posted by stanfr To answer your question, i'd have to go with the anomolous info group for a start. Im not familiar with the case, but for example if the person who showed the archaeologist the undiscovered info had been accompanied the whole time by a team of independent skeptics who closely scrutinized the process from start to finish, that would be a small start. There would have to be a bunch of other cases to build on that. I dont think the idea that "this doesnt necessarily prove reincarnation--could be mediumship or remote viewing etc etc" is valid since obvioulsy the person giving the info is not claiming any of those alternative theories. I don't think it's as simple and straightforward as going with the person's claim, though. Concerning archaelogical/historical stuff... Got a story for you. Let's say a person is shown a one-of-a-kind, hand-made dress made by an ordinary (not recognizably famous) seamstress from the mid 19th century. They've never seen the dress before, and they're no closer than 15 feet. Let's say the fact they never saw it before can be proven--don't know how, but let's take for granted that they really never have. Let's say we can also prove they've never seen any other dress by the same dressmaker and they have no other information about the dress or the dressmaker. There's no slight of hand or mirrors or trickery or collusion. The person claims to be the reincarnation of the dressmaker and remembers making that dress. Their proof is they can tell the color, fiber and weave of the lining, what stitches were used on the inside, and all the interior construction details like which way the seam allowances were ironed, whether there's any boning and what material the boning is made of--without ever seeing anything but the outside of the dress from across the room. After that's all told, everyone examines the inside of the dress. The answers aren't 100% correct but they're way, way better than chance, up there around 90%--well within the range of what a real dressmaker could remember about a dress she made a couple years ago. If, hypothetically, we could prove all the above facts were true, would you consider that an example of good evidence for reincarnation? Is it primarily evidence of reincarnation (and not something else) because the person making the claim says they lived before as the dressmaker, and that's why they can do what they did? Because I did that. The only thing I didn't include was the claim to be a reincarnation of the dress-maker, but that would have only required another sentence or two and some acting ability. I could also have switched the claim to remote viewing or mediumship, with a different sentence or two and equal acting ability.
Pup Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,590

11th July 2010, 07:59 AM	#127
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,942	Originally Posted by PixyMisa We know perfectly well that reincarnation does not happen . . . It's not me who's closed-minded here.
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,942

11th July 2010, 08:06 AM	#128
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,914	Originally Posted by Rodney Suitably inane. We know perfectly well that reincarnation does not happen because (a) it contradicts the entirety of scientific knowledge, and (b) there is no evidence whatsoever to support it. As I keep pointing out, it's impossible and does not happen, and these are two different statements. I'll state it again: We are not being closed-minded in categorically rejecting the notion of reincarnation and inferring that, since it is impossible and does not happen, no evidence supporting reincarnation will ever be presented. The people being closed-minded are the ones who reject all contrary evidence to cling to their belief in reincarnation. That's the very definition of closed-mindedness. This ridiculous trope that skeptics are closed-minded because they don't allow sufficient wiggle-room for someone's pet imbecility is nothing more than intellectual laziness.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

11th July 2010, 07:32 AM	#122
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,478	Originally Posted by PixyMisa A good response laca, but needs more bold 36-point red text. And maybe a blink tag or two. When you see the different sized fonts and the colours,then you know that the thread has kicked the bucket.

11th July 2010, 07:32 AM	#123
caniswalensis Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 2,567	Hi All, I have some additional thoughts, although the temperature in this kitchen is running high enough that I question whether I can take the heat. On "anomolous information:" With a little more thought, I have adapted my view on this. Even if someone can objectively prove beyond doubt, that they hold anomolous information, it still does not specifically prove reincarnation. There are other, perhaps equally far-fetched hypothesis that could predict anomolous information. A few spring to mind: racial memory, thought transference across time, and possesion. Each of these ideas also predicts anomolous information. I am sure we could all think of more that are both fun to believe in and unfalsifiable. On "talking babies:" While the absence of talking or otherwise talented babies may seem to falsify any theory or reincarnation, there may be a reason why can not depend on this as evidence against. I believe there are actual physiological reasons why an infant could not speak words or perform other complicated actions like painting. An infant or toddler may not have the muscular strength or motor control nessesary to do these things. Think of someone that has had a stroke. They know how to speak, but have lost a lifetime's worth of practice at doing so. Their motor skills have been wiped out and they must relearn them. Not sure if this applies or not. I am hoping that someone with more knowledge of such things will chime in on this. A common belief about reincarnation is that the older one gets, the less they will be able to remember of their past life, so it could be said that by the time one has the physical ability to speak and paint or whatever, they have lost the knowledge of how to do so. On "what's the point:" It would seem rather pointless to reincarnate if you don't remember anything and can't learn from it. There are problems with making this argument to believers though. The idea is that the learning is not for you in this lifetime. In fact, we are probably only here now because we need to learn more. A common belief is that it is your soul that must learn form all its lives. When your soul is disincarnate, many people believe that it is fully aware of and fully remembers all its lives. It is easy to see how carefully honed this belief is against being falsified. Since reincarnation is undetectable and to an extent undefined, it is unfalsifiable. As others have said in this thread, to prove reincarnation would first require proof of the existence of the soul. Then perhaps some sort of "soul fingerprint kit" could be developed. Probably won't happen in this lifetime. I think the best way to discuss this topic with a believer would be to introduce the concepts of "evidence vs. proof" and "objective vs. subjective" to them if they are not already familiar with them. Then rather than telling them what sort of evidence could prove it scientifically (which will probably be unreasonable in their mind) Discuss with them why they believe in it. When they outline their evidences, demonstrate the subjectiveness of them by offering alternative paranormal hypothesis for each one. By doing that, you will show them that they are making assumptions based on their personal bias. Let them do the math themselves and it is a much easier pill to swallow. Example: B: "I believe in reincarnation because there's a kid that has detailed knowledge of a WWII pilots life that he has no way of knowing." S: "Perhaps that kid is actualy psychic and touched an object that belonged to that pilot. How do we know which is the answer." Now, chances are the story of the kid is not true anyway, but instead of just denying their "evidence" it is better to show them why it does not prove anything. Needless to say, this dialogue needs to be a friendly & respectful discussion if it is to have any positive effect on the believer. Regards, Canis

11th July 2010, 07:53 AM	#125
fromdownunder Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 3,095	I assume that everyone who has responded to this thread is familiar with the Bridey Murphy case, which has been falsified to my, and most people's satisfaction. This case of "reincarnation" is probably as famous as it gets, and has been pretty well debunked. So, if nothing better than this can be brought to the table, it really is all over. I think the key word, as many have stated is "evidence", There is none. Norm

11th July 2010, 08:07 AM	#129
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,764	Originally Posted by Rodney You know very well what was meant with that. I have YET to see a believer be open to their pet woo being inexistant. Like for example, some of them being open to the idea ganzfeld is utter bunk. @caniswalensis I brought the same argument about motor skill on the tongue, but that argument do NOT hold for motor skill of the hand. Baby could manipulate cubes with letters on them or at least point and wave the arm toward them, and form a compelte sentence or even, an essay on what their past life was. But that is never what is proposed as "evidence" for reincarnation. I have to go with pixymisa here, there is no evidence of reacincarnation because reincarnation DO NOT exists, and if it did, the whole world would be different. The only way around that is to pretend the reincarnated one lose all his/her memory, and then at that point you could as well say you start from a clean slate is about as logic as reincarnation.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

11th July 2010, 08:07 AM	#130
manxman Banned Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 371	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto A three-year old in a sweet little lispy voice providing the Swiss bank account number in which we find the trillion dollars he stole in his previous life time. Wont that require bush senior or chenney expiring firstly.
manxman Banned Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 371

11th July 2010, 08:13 AM	#131
Sun Countess Appearance of intelligence Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Posts: 3,176	Originally Posted by Illiadus I agree with Iaca's statement that there can be no "precise and specific definition that will satisfy most skeptics" without a clear definition of reincarnation. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to resolve that issue or is that impossible? Why do I need a clear definition of reincarnation anymore than I need a clear definition of Yahweh or homeopathy? It's all utter nonsense, and from where I see the believers in any of those three things have definitions which vary considerably amongst themselves. Go to a reincarnation board if you want a definition. Does it all boil down to moles and birthmarks or some ill-defined personality traits being passed from one person to another? Is there a genetic component? Who knows? Who cares? The people concocting these theories are grasping at invisible straws. There's no credible evidence of reincarnation at this point in time. Absolutely none. If it were happening in a way that actually impacted people, we would have evidence of it by now. It's either not happening at all, or it's happening in a way that can't be measured. The more you protest, Illiadus, the more I get the sense you'd like to find a way to prove reincarnation is really really true, but those meanie skeptics aren't even willing to help you with your homework. Sorry if I've mischaracterized, but I wonder why you care about such a silly topic so darn much.

11th July 2010, 08:16 AM	#132
caniswalensis Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 2,567	Originally Posted by Aepervius @caniswalensis I brought the same argument about motor skill on the tongue, but that argument do NOT hold for motor skill of the hand. Baby could manipulate cubes with letters on them or at least point and wave the arm toward them, and form a compelte sentence or even, an essay on what their past life was. Good thinking! That essay would take a lot of blocks, to be sure. Believers might answer this by saying that people are not normally born with a complete memory of their past life, though. In the end, the lack of babies that compose block essays is not enough to disprove reincarnation. Regards, Canis

11th July 2010, 08:19 AM	#133
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,914	True enough. If ever you get a coherent definition and point out that by that definition, the claimed event does not happen, the Retreat to Unfalsifiability kicks into gear.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

11th July 2010, 08:47 AM	#134
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by Illiadus Well, Sadhatter, I believe that the existing so called "evidence" for reincarnation that we've all heard of -- hypnosis, the pilot boy, Stevenson, et c -- that none of it is conclusive/worth ****, but a lot of people take it as being scientifically valid. However, if me or anyone is going to convince said people that they're wrong, I need to be able to say: "This would convince a skeptic, not what you have now." If I tell them, and yes I talk to woos, that the skeptical community requires talking babies composing operas in the womb, or that it can't be proven at all, then the dialog is over. Do you understand? It's not about convincing anyone here about anything! Do you understand that I don't believe in reincarnation? Am I getting through at all? Just as i thought a thinly veiled " your asking for too much proof" thread. As a skeptic, what would convince you of reincarnation then? What would be valid scientific proof to you? If you are indeed a skeptic, why in the heck do you need our opinion of what constitutes proof? That doesn't make sense, that would be like if a black friend asks me " what does a white guy think of the show the boondocks?" and i then proceed to have to call other white people and get their views on the show. Within the claims made bby reincarnation a child of a few weeks old talking is perfectly reasonable. The concept is that memories and a soul are transferred, why are these memories never speech? Or math, or engineering? But wait, they sometimes are. But only when a child would be able to learn them. If that doesn't reek to high heaven of flim flam to you, i doubt your skepticality.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

11th July 2010, 09:38 AM	#135
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,418	Originally Posted by manxman Wont that require bush senior or chenney expiring firstly. Unfortunately, there are quite a few other candidates.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

11th July 2010, 10:02 AM	#136
Le Jab Scholar Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 56	Speaking as a Hypnotist.... As a hypnotherapist, I can honestly state that in my experience, that recall under hypnosis is notoriously unreliable. False memory syndrome puts a huge question mark after any statement made during regressive therapy. I have done very little past life regression, but I know from my practice that information provided about previous experiences has to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Freud gave up on repressed memory hypnosis as a disproportionate number of subjects were claiming sexual abuse. I use hypnosis with sports people, and whilst under hypnosis, I asked an athlete to re-live an experience of when he was successful. He went on to tell in me in explicit detail about winning a national title at 14 yrs, and even described the cup and his acceptance speech for 'athlete of the year'. So theres me getting him to 'anchor' those feelings of success in order to re-experience them at points in competition when needed, only to find out that it was a completely fabricated story ! My past life regression attempts have had the normal stuff - Tutenkhamen's body guard etc. (When asked to speak in his native tongue, he spoke English with an Arabic-type accent !) Hypnosis regression is fun, and no more than an elaborate parlour game.
Le Jab Scholar Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 56

11th July 2010, 10:13 AM	#137
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,418	Originally Posted by Le Jab As a hypnotherapist, I can honestly state that in my experience, that recall under hypnosis is notoriously unreliable. False memory syndrome puts a huge question mark after any statement made during regressive therapy. I have done very little past life regression, but I know from my practice that information provided about previous experiences has to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Freud gave up on repressed memory hypnosis as a disproportionate number of subjects were claiming sexual abuse. I use hypnosis with sports people, and whilst under hypnosis, I asked an athlete to re-live an experience of when he was successful. He went on to tell in me in explicit detail about winning a national title at 14 yrs, and even described the cup and his acceptance speech for 'athlete of the year'. So theres me getting him to 'anchor' those feelings of success in order to re-experience them at points in competition when needed, only to find out that it was a completely fabricated story ! My past life regression attempts have had the normal stuff - Tutenkhamen's body guard etc. (When asked to speak in his native tongue, he spoke English with an Arabic-type accent !) Hypnosis regression is fun, and no more than an elaborate parlour game. Welcome to the Forum Le Jab. Nice post and I have nominated it for its direct experience.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

11th July 2010, 10:16 AM	#138
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,418	Originally Posted by Le Jab As a hypnotherapist, I can honestly state that in my experience, that recall under hypnosis is notoriously unreliable. False memory syndrome puts a huge question mark after any statement made during regressive therapy. I have done very little past life regression, but I know from my practice that information provided about previous experiences has to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Freud gave up on repressed memory hypnosis as a disproportionate number of subjects were claiming sexual abuse. I use hypnosis with sports people, and whilst under hypnosis, I asked an athlete to re-live an experience of when he was successful. He went on to tell in me in explicit detail about winning a national title at 14 yrs, and even described the cup and his acceptance speech for 'athlete of the year'. So theres me getting him to 'anchor' those feelings of success in order to re-experience them at points in competition when needed, only to find out that it was a completely fabricated story ! My past life regression attempts have had the normal stuff - Tutenkhamen's body guard etc. (When asked to speak in his native tongue, he spoke English with an Arabic-type accent !) Hypnosis regression is fun, and no more than an elaborate parlour game. Welcome to the Forum Le Jab. Nice post and I have nominated it for its reporting based on direct experience.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

11th July 2010, 10:28 AM	#139
jakesteele Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,224	Originally Posted by RhodyDave I would accept reincarnation as real if Illiadus and Sledge are reincarnated as each other... That's cruel and heartless.
	__________________ Occam’s Beard – The simplest solution isn’t always the best

11th July 2010, 10:29 AM	#140
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	What about Jesus, if he comes back does that prove reincarnation, or just reincarnation for divine entities once again it's one rule for us and another for them

11th July 2010, 11:34 AM	#141
SusanB-M1 Incurable Optimist Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Almost in the New Forest, Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,867	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Did you check behind the sofa? I was posting it on a topic elsewhere. I tried to find the post containing it to quote it here, but gave up!!
	__________________ I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

11th July 2010, 12:16 PM	#143
Naddig74 Has a Rucksack Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Heading For the Hills Posts: 1,639	Oh, dude, you're gonna be real popular round here...

11th July 2010, 12:19 PM	#144
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 12,570	Originally Posted by Illiadus Paulhoff, I don’t need to prove there’s a soul, something I don’t even believe in, to have the right to ask questions to those who are kind enough to answer. What is the title of this thread, and didn't you say you wanted to know what evidence would be sufficient to prove reincarnation. Prove first there is a soul. Paul
	__________________ For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST" Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing

11th July 2010, 12:20 PM	#145
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,682	Originally Posted by Illiadus Akhenaten, I love brevity, but did your answer suggest it’s impossible to define reincarnation or did you mean that reincarnation is impossible? Please expand. R e i n c a r n a t i o n __ i s __ i m p o s s i b l e .
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

11th July 2010, 12:28 PM	#146
Illiadus Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 236	Paulhoff, you need to be more articulate in the future, but I understand now that you mean "prove the soul" as a method of proving reincarnation. Does anyone else agree that proving there's a soul necessarily proves reincarnation, because I don't see why it would?
Illiadus Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 236

11th July 2010, 12:30 PM	#147
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by Illiadus Marduk, do you mean one rule for us mortals and one for divine entities? Theres no such thing as divine entities, except for Geena Davis

11th July 2010, 12:34 PM	#148
Sideroxylon Gavagai! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Turkey Posts: 10,639	Originally Posted by Illiadus Paulhoff, you need to be more articulate in the future, but I understand now that you mean "prove the soul" as a method of proving reincarnation. Does anyone else agree that proving there's a soul necessarily proves reincarnation, because I don't see why it would? No, but its existence is a necessary condition for reincarnation to be possible.
	__________________ 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

11th July 2010, 12:37 PM	#149
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,682	Originally Posted by Illiadus Paulhoff, you need to be more articulate in the future, but I understand now that you mean "prove the soul" as a method of proving reincarnation. Does anyone else agree that proving there's a soul necessarily proves reincarnation, because I don't see why it would? 1. Don't be so rude. 2. Paul's point is both perfectly clear and 100% correct. Originally Posted by Sideroxylon No, but its existence is a necessary condition for reincarnation to be possible. What you said.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

11th July 2010, 12:38 PM	#150
Pup Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,590	Originally Posted by Illiadus Pup, don’t just read a sentence here and there and jump to conclusions. I don’t believe in reincarnation and I’ve said it so many times and in so many posts now, it’s ridiculous. Also, what if reincarnation doesn’t give you the same genes? Aren’t you making huge assumptions? Assuming you're referring to post #116 about the genes, of course I'm making a huge assumption. Well, I mean, I'm not really sincerely making it, I'm presenting it as a humorous exageration to show that any hypothesis about reincarnation involves huge assumptions, which first need pinned down before one can proceed. What if reincarnation doesn't give you memories that carry over from one life to the next? Isn't that a huge assumption too?
Pup Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,590

11th July 2010, 12:52 PM	#151
Sun Countess Appearance of intelligence Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Posts: 3,176	Originally Posted by Illiadus Paulhoff, you need to be more articulate in the future, but I understand now that you mean "prove the soul" as a method of proving reincarnation. Does anyone else agree that proving there's a soul necessarily proves reincarnation, because I don't see why it would? Nobody here believes that, including Paulhoff, who said nothing of the sort. The existence of an unseen entity called a soul is just a first step. If there's no soul, then there's nothing to reincarnate. No soul = No reincarnation. If there is a soul, then that opens a slew of possibilities. Where do they come from? Where do they go? Nearly half the planet believes that their souls will go on to an afterlife. Most of those don't believe in reincarnation. It's a first step toward reincarnation even being a possibility, but it's certainly not the only step. With so many people hinging their entire lives on the existence of their soul, you'd think one of them would have proven it by now. Until then, I'm not going to believe in their existence any more than I believe in the existence of gods, pixies, or orbiting teacups.
	Last edited by Sun Countess; 11th July 2010 at 12:53 PM.

11th July 2010, 12:55 PM	#152
Illiadus Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 236	Marduk, I was joking.
Illiadus Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 236

11th July 2010, 12:58 PM	#153
Illiadus Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 236	Yes, that too is a huge assumption, Pup.
Illiadus Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 236

11th July 2010, 12:59 PM	#154
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 12,570	Originally Posted by Illiadus Paulhoff, you need to be more articulate in the future, but I understand now that you mean "prove the soul" as a method of proving reincarnation. Does anyone else agree that proving there's a soul necessarily proves reincarnation, because I don't see why it would? Yes, some do need to be hit on the head many times to get a simple idea. Paul
	__________________ For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST" Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing

11th July 2010, 12:59 PM	#155
Illiadus Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 236	Some people here are assuming reincarnation would require a soul. As a skeptic, I don't jump to such conclusions.
Illiadus Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 236

11th July 2010, 01:05 PM	#156
Sideroxylon Gavagai! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Turkey Posts: 10,639	Originally Posted by Illiadus Some people here are assuming reincarnation would require a soul. As a skeptic, I don't jump to such conclusions. I reckon pretty much any means that you can come up with of preserving the information of the conscious mind and then having that reborn into another person would attract the label of soul.
	__________________ 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman Last edited by Sideroxylon; 11th July 2010 at 01:07 PM.