Past-Life Regression

Paul Smeenus · 04-02-2014, 02:04 AM

1. Absolutely not.

That pretty much answers the rest of the poll.

I believe that the belief in reincarnation is similar to the belief in an afterlife, in that both are understandable attempts to grasp to any immortality that can't be disproven.I accept that this is the one and only sentient time I get, and that after I die is exactly like before I was born.

The Batlord · 04-02-2014, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Smeenus

1. Absolutely not.

That pretty much answers the rest of the poll.

I believe that the belief in reincarnation is similar to the belief in an afterlife, in that both are understandable attempts to grasp to any immortality that can't be disproven.I accept that this is the one and only sentient time I get, and that after I die is exactly like before I was born.

Logical fallacy. If you can't disprove something then you can't claim to know that it isn't true. You can not believe in it, you can even claim to actively believe that it isn't true, but to claim to know that it isn't true crosses the line of logic. It's simply logically impossible to claim to know with 100% certainty that something that can't be disproven isn't true. 99.999% sure perhaps, but that last .001% is the difference between believing and knowing. So the four people who voted for the first option are wrong. Straight up. Option two is as far as you can go.

**Frownland** · 04-02-2014, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Logical fallacy. If you can't disprove something then you can't claim to know that it isn't true. You can not believe in it, you can even claim to actively believe that it isn't true, but to claim to know that it isn't true crosses the line of logic. It's simply logically impossible to claim to know with 100% certainty that something that can't be disproven isn't true. 99.999% sure perhaps, but that last .001% is the difference between believing and knowing. So the four people who voted for the first option are wrong. Straight up. Option two is as far as you can go.

The burden of proof is on those purporting the theory, not the other way around.

ladyislingering · 04-02-2014, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Not something I believe is real. The main reason I think that is that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it's real. There's also the issue of how rapidly the number of people on earth is growing. Since there are so many more people now that there were a few generations ago that means, even if reincarnation were real, most people would not have had any previous human lives.

Consider for a minute that perhaps not every living being has had a past life in order to harbor memories in their subconscious (and not every person alive, today, is a result of reincarnation) but once in a while it may happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

Reincarnation assumes that this is the only world. I believe that there are things beyond here we can't begin to comprehend. We'll essentially dimension hop, in death, for a time before we hit eternity.

I remember watching this cool video on youtube, some years back, about a well-constructed theory that there are at least 10 dimensions. (It's really hard to understand so you have to focus in order to sort of wrap your head around it.)

**Janszoon** · 04-02-2014, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladyislingering

Consider for a minute that perhaps not every living being has had a past life in order to harbor memories in their subconscious (and not every person alive, today, is a result of reincarnation) but once in a while it may happen.

That goes back to my primary point, which is that there's no evidence of such a thing.

ladyislingering · 04-02-2014, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

That goes back to my primary point, which is that there's no evidence of such a thing.

There's no solid evidence but there's been a few people in this world (even children) who claim to have some sort of extrasensory perception or some memory of being somewhere else. I'm a tiny bit skeptical of this case but I will admit if she's not bullshitting everyone, her soul has had a terrific journey. Someone in the comment section in the video I'll post below makes a good point about Ms. Karlen: she seems to have no concern for Otto Frank; if her soul belonged to Anne in a past life, she would have been chiefly concerned with being reunited with her father while he was still alive. HOWEVER. There are probably several reasons this didn't happen, and I'm not going to split hairs over it.

Spoiler for Barbro Karlen is Anne Frank reincarnated:

The Batlord · 04-02-2014, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

The burden of proof is on those purporting the theory, not the other way around.

But if you're actively claiming something doesn't exist then you're the one purporting the theory. If all you're saying is that you don't believe something then you're not making any kind of claim, but claiming that something actually doesn't exist is a claim and you have to provide proof.

If I say I don't believe there is a unicorn living on a particular undiscovered island in the South Pacific then I don't have to prove that. I simply don't believe it. If I claim that it isn't there then I actually have to prove that the unicorn doesn't live there.

**Frownland** · 04-02-2014, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

But if you're actively claiming something doesn't exist then you're the one purporting the theory. If all you're saying is that you don't believe something then you're not making any kind of claim, but claiming that something actually doesn't exist is a claim and you have to provide proof.

If I say I don't believe there is a unicorn living on a particular undiscovered island in the South Pacific then I don't have to prove that. I simply don't believe it. If I claim that it isn't there then I actually have to prove that the unicorn doesn't live there.

Lack of evidence is proof enough that something isn't true until that evidence comes forward. That's not to mention that claiming something doesn't exist is commonly in response to someone saying that it does.

The Batlord · 04-02-2014, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Lack of evidence is proof enough that something isn't true until that evidence comes forward. That's not to mention that claiming something doesn't exist is commonly in response to someone saying that it does.

No. A lack of evidence is merely a lack of proof of something's existence, not proof that it doesn't exist. I'm an atheist who is perfectly comfortable with actively believing that god doesn't exist. I think human psychology's penchant for inventing gods anywhere and everywhere regardless of how absurd it may sound is evidence enough for me that god is nonsense, but I would never go so far as to claim to know that he doesn't exist. No matter how much I believe that he doesn't exist, I can't know that he doesn't. Same with reincarnation.

**Janszoon** · 04-02-2014, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladyislingering

There's no solid evidence but there's been a few people in this world (even children) who claim to have some sort of extrasensory perception or some memory of being somewhere else. I'm a tiny bit skeptical of this case but I will admit if she's not bullshitting everyone, her soul has had a terrific journey. Someone in the comment section in the video I'll post below makes a good point about Ms. Karlen: she seems to have no concern for Otto Frank; if her soul belonged to Anne in a past life, she would have been chiefly concerned with being reunited with her father while he was still alive. HOWEVER. There are probably several reasons this didn't happen, and I'm not going to split hairs over it.

Spoiler for Barbro Karlen is Anne Frank reincarnated:

The fact that so many people who claim to have past lives also seem to believe that they were someone significant in their previous life, despite the statistical improbability of that being the case, is actually more of an argument against reincarnation to me than an argument in favor of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

No. A lack of evidence is merely a lack of proof of something's existence, not proof that it doesn't exist. I'm an atheist who is perfectly comfortable with actively believing that god doesn't exist. I think human psychology's penchant for inventing gods anywhere and everywhere regardless of how absurd it may sound is evidence enough for me that god is nonsense, but I would never go so far as to claim to know that he doesn't exist. No matter how much I believe that he doesn't exist, I can't know that he doesn't. Same with reincarnation.

We can't truly, unequivocally know anything for sure. So either we can eliminate the word "know" from the English language or we can recognize it as meaning "I believe to an extremely high degree of certainty".

View Poll Results: Have you been reincarnated?
No. I'm sure of this.	5	62.50%
I don't believe so, but there's a chance.	3	37.50%
Yes. Absolutely.	0	0%
Yes, but I'm not sure what makes me feel this way.	0	0%
I don't know.	0	0%
Voters: 8. You may not vote on this poll