| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I was King Tuthankamun.
Thats where I get my chiselled looks and love for gold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Then I definitely recommend you read Karen Armstrong's book. She explains all that stuff very well. I can't quite remember all the details as it's been a few years now but she did say that some of it was to do with analogies, for instance when a demon appears to Buddha that represents an internal struggle between his better and worse nature (akin I suppose to when we talk about confronting our own demons).
|
Grimalkin,
Ok I will look into it - thanks!
One question though ** puzzled ** ....the basic beliefs in Buddhism assert that by following the Eightfold Path, one can break the cycle of reincarnation and attain Enlightenment. If reincarnation is not a central part of Buddhism, then what is the point of following the Path? ** scratches head ** |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
I can tell the difference between something written by a native speaker and a Korean writing in English. If a child from the rural poor in India can speak fluent German... should be easy to test and highly unlikely he/she learned to speak fluent German at age 8. |
I have not heard any claim that these children can write in a second language. Also it would be too easy for the child to simply claim illiteracy.
The traumatic process of death and rebirth may cause the reborn child to lose some of their natural speaking ability.
Remember you can only test what they claim to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Occam's Razor should apply.
"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."
So what's simpler? A child was taught a language before claims were made, or was forcefed stories by relatives to later re-tell to researchers. Or quite simply translators lie and embellish where the child can't. What people wont do for fame and money, eh?
OR
the soul was magically transferred from a dead person and that soul can remember everything about its past life.
To me there is simply no question about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| Occam's Razor should apply. |
Took the words right out of my mouth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:26 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
The simplest explanation depends on your worldview.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
The simplest explanation depends on your worldview.
Peace |
Thats true. But we cant really call yours a world view...more like insanity |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
The simplest explanation depends on your worldview.
Peace |
You do have a point since Occam was no atheist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
The simplest explanation depends on your worldview.
Peace |
Occam's razor actually goes "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."
How did my sock get from one end of the room to another? Teleportation is a rather more simple explanation then the notion that a mouse just found its way in my apartment, out of the thousands of apartments, found my sock, took a liking...
Demonic possession rather neatly explains some symptoms. Epilepsy is a rather more complicated explanation.
Teleportation/demonic possession aren't great explanations because now we have to invent a new and unknown entity. Hence, unless you eliminate the known entities that would explain reincarnation phenomena, you should not invent an unproven entity ("immortal soul") to explain the data.
So it's less a matter of "simple" and more of a matter of when you can insert an unknown entity (multiplying entities).
Like I say, an 8 year old Indian kid from the slums speaking 19th century German would lend support for the reincarnation entity. An Indian kid who knows some phrases of a language minority within his own nation and has been exposed to such language isn't very compelling evidence to multiply entities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
The simplest explanation depends on your worldview.
Peace |
Occam's razor actually goes "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."
How did my sock get from one end of the room to another? Teleportation is a rather more simple explanation then the notion that a mouse just found its way in my apartment, out of the thousands of apartments, found my sock, took a liking...
Demonic possession rather neatly explains some symptoms. Epilepsy is a rather more complicated explanation.
Teleportation/demonic possession aren't great explanations because now we have to invent a new and unknown entity. Hence, unless you eliminate the known entities that would explain reincarnation phenomena, you should not invent an unproven entity ("immortal soul") to explain the data.
So it's less a matter of "simple" and more of a matter of when you can insert an unknown entity (multiplying entities).
Like I say, an 8 year old Indian kid from the slums speaking 19th century German would lend support for the reincarnation entity. An Indian kid who knows some phrases of a language minority within his own nation and has been exposed to such language isn't very compelling evidence to multiply entities. |
I agree with Occam (and you, I suppose) in that I also think entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. I differ from you in that I believe reincarnation to be a proven fact. Hence, the immortal soul is a necessary entity in my worldview.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:35 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
The simplest explanation depends on your worldview.
Peace |
Thats true. But we cant really call yours a world view...more like insanity |
If your criteria for insanity is belief in reincarnation, I find some comfort in being in good company.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
I agree with Occam (and you, I suppose) in that I also think entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. I differ from you in that I believe reincarnation to be a proven fact. Hence, the immortal soul is a necessary entity in my worldview.
Peace |
You're kind of using circular reasoning here. Proven how, exactly? The proof you offered was this foreign language question, although clearly there are prosaic explanations.
"This knowledge proves reincarnation. We can exclude other explanations for this knowledge because reincarnation is a proven entity and is the simplest explanation. We know reincarnation is real because of the knowledge in question." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:41 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
I agree with Occam (and you, I suppose) in that I also think entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. I differ from you in that I believe reincarnation to be a proven fact. Hence, the immortal soul is a necessary entity in my worldview.
Peace |
You're kind of using circular reasoning here. Proven how, exactly? The proof you offered was this foreign language question, although clearly there are prosaic explanations.
"This knowledge proves reincarnation. We can exclude other explanations for this knowledge because reincarnation is a proven entity and is the simplest explanation. We know reincarnation is real because of the knowledge in question." |
This is why I usually do not try to prove spiritual beliefs - as you said, the "proofs" inevitably become circular. I think my proof just misses the circular reasoning label, though, because I believe the research by Dr. Stevenson and others has begun to prove reincarnation as fact.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is what I find Sam Harris has to say on reincarnation, I myself am a little less open to the idea
| Quote: |
My views on the paranormal�ESP, reincarnation, etc.:
My position on the paranormal is this: While there have been many frauds in the history of parapsychology, I believe that this field of study has been unfairly stigmatized. If some experimental psychologists want to spend their days studying telepathy, or the effects of prayer, I will be interested to know what they find out. And if it is true that toddlers occasionally start speaking in ancient languages (as Ian Stevenson alleges), I would like to know about it. However, I have not spent any time attempting to authenticate the data put forward in books like Dean Radin�s The Conscious Universe or Ian Stevenson�s 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. The fact that I have not spent any time on this should suggest how worthy of my time I think such a project would be. Still, I found these books interesting, and I cannot categorically dismiss their contents in the way that I can dismiss the claims of religious dogmatists. |
From here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| Past lives are bogus. Everytime someone says they were somebody in a past life its usually always somebody famous or great. What, do regular people not get reincarnated? People who believe this are mindless flakes. |
KARMA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
