fair enough, There is indeed a difference between “I feel, strongly that it exists” and “high probability”
Still, I think continuing to press someone for scientific details on a subject that isn’t really addressed by science doesn’t add anything to what is intended to be a a discussion about the possibilities. Isn’t it enough to say
There isn’t any objective evidence so at this point there can’t be any high probability.
That’s the stated goal rather than the 1st rule isn’t it?
And who gets to decide what woo science can address-the woosters? I’m sorry, but this supposed line science must no cross has been shifting since the beginning of recorded history-we have become what we are today by making the unknown known.
Wow that seems unnessecarily harsh and pretty unwelcoming. I’ll point out again that the subject title is “Do you believe” not " What objective facts support or contrafict" The OP is pretty uncomplicated and straight ahead. Also not a request for a scientific analysis of reincarnation.
The OP is specifically asking for opinions. With that in mind JustSue stopped in for that purpose. If every thread in GD that even smacks of anything like a religious belief is going to be subjected to “where’s the evidence” then maybe they don’t belong in this forum. Perhaps this should have been moved pages ago. I just think people who tend to believe and want to discuss the possibilities ought to be able to without demands for evidence
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of places on the internet where people can go to make claims and not have them challenged or questioned, places where all beliefs are considered equal(often by board decree). This board isn’t one of them, I don’t think. Putting forth the idea that the memories stored in our brain are somehow transferred to another brand new brain after the first brain is entirely devoid of life is an incredible scientific claim, and cloaking said scientific claim in terms like “I believe” doesn’t change that fact. It is not out of bounds to ask why someone would believe that such a thing is possible, and it is certainly not out of bounds to present opposing facts to show why such a concept might not work.
I’m not saying that. The OP seems to be asking for opinions and ideas and not scientific objective evidence. MAybe this thread beloongs in IMHO rather than GD.
I’m only saying that people who tend to believe , or people like the OP who are just casually curious, ought to be able to discuss the possibilities and theories without being innundated with demands for evidence.
It really goes without saying that reincarnation is not scientifically proveable. It really isn’t addressed much at all. If someone is claiming they know or have proof that’s another matter, JustSue just stopped in to express an opinion that seems requested by the thread title and the OP and was borderline mocked for doing so.
It hardly seems nessecary and IMHO is on the edge of violating the 1st rule. If all subjects that even smack of religion will be met that way in GD, then simply move them to another thread and let people have a discussion in peace.
would you stop into a thread about space travel and alien life to ask them to explain how the star ship engines work based on current scientific knowledge?
I do believe in them, and I believe I know mine, it explains so much in my life, including my past behavior, past patterns, reasons for doing thing and feeling thing, and most importantly the solution that was always available for me, though I did not see it till exploring my past lives.
In that, if they exist or not, doesn’t matter, what does matter is can this information help you as a person, for me it has been a unquestionable yes, so past lives and exploring them are a definite plus even if there is no such thing.
Peace
JustSue stopped by to present science that she thought made reincarnation feasible, taking it totally out of the realm of belief and unsupported opinion, and opening the conversation to opposing fact and correction.
Which is why I suggested casual discussions of this type may not belong in GD at all. If something is clearly and rather obviously beyond current scientific knowledge , like star ships and alien life, then it seems pointless to approach it that way, unless someone is making some sort of factual claim. JustSue certainly wasn’t. Why ask “can you explain that?” when you already know they can’t, and then treat their attempts with disdain.
I think it’s fine and even healthy to remind people that their beliefs are not the same as facts and to correct any misunderstandings they have about science. I just had a discussion with a friend at work and told him that beliefs have always evolved as more knowledge is gained and belief systems ought to open to new facts. That said, it’s also healthy for non believers to acknowledge that there’s a lot we don’t know about how energy , matter and consciousness relate and connect.
She was just presenting loose theories and ideas about the possibilitiy off reincarnation, not empirical evidence, and said so. She even said “reincarnation, if scientifically possible” indicating she is well aware that it may not exist at all.
And there’s a lot we do know that shouldn’t be put away in a box just because someone hides behind the words “I believe” when making a claim of fact. You keep bringing up things like alien life and star ships, but when people discuss such concepts on this board they do discuss what science currently says on the subject. No factual claim is off-limits to criticism and review, and what JustSue is doing is making a factual claim. She may be coaching her facts with “I only believe that these are facts” or “My friends told me these are facts”, but she is still trying to present evidence, however weak it is.
Isn’t that what some of us are saying? Doesn’t it go something like this?:
Claim: X happens.
Question: What is your evidence that X happens?
Response: This is my anecdotal evidence for X.
Question: This evidence is subjective and non-supported. Have you any other?
Respose: No, but there are forces at work in the universe that you don’t understand either, therefore X is valid.
That is not an argument from reason. So while science puts forth theories that may lack experimental verification, it does at least attempt to put together a compelling argument modeled on a foundation of established data. It frequently turns out to be wrong and those theories get trashed. But it’s all based on research and data. Saying, “I feel like there is X, I just can’t explain it, but wouldn’t it be wonderful!”, isn’t argument from reason, it’s wishful thinking. What’s more, to put it on equal footing with a reasoned argument diminishes reason.
And yes, speculation about some far off future technology as portrayed in science fiction is just as silly. I could no more seriously posit or defend how that technology would work than I could defend past lives.
I don’t believe in Past lives, but I wonder if some things in our genes can be past on to other generations, like memories. I taught my self to sew, and could sew better than my mother, my daughters can sew better than me.
I once worked making cores in a factory, I was having a difficult time until the thought came to me. why don’t you do it like I did it before, I did it the way it came to my mind, and it was a snap! My father worked making cores in a factory many years before that!
I honestly don’t see it that way after reading her posts and the title of the threrad and the OP. I don’ think she’s secretly cloaking her beliefs. She said she just wanted to participate in what she saw as a casual duscussion of what might be possible. It doesn’t seem she offered anything as evidence that reincarnation actually exists. Her “IF reincarnation is scientifically possible” seems to dismiss that.
In addition, it’s not just asking for evidence when it should be obvious there isn’t any, and a poster hasn’t made that claim. It’s the rather obvious disdain and borderline mockery that accompanied almost all the posts that responded to her. so I’ve said my piece. IMHO, move a thread like this so people who might enjoy the subject can discuss in peace, or don’t turn a thread titled
“Do you believe” into “where’s the evidence for” in such an unwelcoming and mocking manner.
Justsue wasn’t claiming X happens. She simply wanted to discuss the possibilities of. I’d say the foundation of any type of afterlife is on the idea, {fact?} that we still have a lot to learn about energy, matter and consciousness.
It’s either unexplored territory , or unknown facts and details about areas we’ve only begun to explore.
It appears to me that her posts were treated with a certain disdain by posters who hold the very concept in disdain. The OP specifically asked for opinions about. It wasn’t a scientific duscussion about a clearly unscientific subject.
You personally may consider such speculation silly, but that’s not a good reason to dump on other’s people’s interest in the possibility. That’s what I don’t get. If other posters think it’s silly and a waste of time, fime. Then why participate. Why the need to challenge loose details and ideas about a subject with the air of disdain and mockery?
interesting. I’ve often wondered about aptitude gifts and talents.
Hmmmm I wonder where the lines are drawn.
I agree with you, cosmosdan, that this discussion took a turn to IMHO some pages back. I have no idea why the mods chose to leave it in GD. Perhaps everyone would be better served if it was moved there.
However, JustSue didn’t do herself any favors when she doubled down on her lack of knowledge on the basics, insisting that her speculation was based on fundamentals that she got absolutely wrong. And that’s not a judgement of her as a person, though it’s clear she took it very personally.
Dunno, but this isn’t even close to the line.
I can respect a person’s right to free speech.
I don’t have to respect a speech about how aliens probed JFK the night before Elvis abducted him to live in Mars and leaving a body double to be shot by the Trilateral Commission who set up a patsy on the grassy knoll while Oswald was a convenient wild card.
There’s as much evidence for that as the woo in this thread.
Hmmmm I wonder what you mean by “lines are drawn”-respect is a personal choice. I can respect someone’s right to free speech, yet criticize them for posting hate-filled bigotry. I can respect the right to keep and bear arms, yet be against what I might consider to be unsafe use of weaponry. I can respect the right to an opinion, and yet disagree with unsupported opinion if it conflicts with current knowledge.