You can also read the related Nirvana here.

— from a discussion in a forum on science … excerpts !

Mr A T M
I think “I disagree” gets your point across without referring to an ancient religion as “horse shit”.

Mr M B
Well … let put in this way, there is no prove that there is reincarnation, more worst I think there is no way to formally prove it (I mean in a scientific way). It is not affecting my “actual” life … so I do to not care at all and I spend my time thinking about other stuff … … but again why do you ask it in here, in a “scientific” forum?

Mr A T M
On the contrary, if reincarnation does exist, then it should affect your current life by urging you to adhere to the tenants by which you return as a more enlightened being.

Mr M B
The problem is who decide the “rules”. May be my life is already good and changing it it will make it worst and I’ll end up returning in a less enlightened being … so why I should risk? And anyway I do not think this is the best place to discuss about Religion, that I think is completely different from science.

Mr A T M
If the “rules” are truly beyond human comprehension, then you are correct – any random lifestyle is as good as any other. Since such a system cannot be appeased (that is, you cannot hope to satisfy the rulemaker), the rational wager is that the rules coincide with the basic notions of “goodness” that lies at the heart of many religions. I invite you to read the following short article I have written on a similar idea:

Mr A R I
some renowned authors have cited “facts” of people remembering their past lives- a clear case of reincarnation, though only determined by the subject’s stand. also, psychiatrists have noted people with unusually high IQ’s, like 300+, which may also be connected to supernatural phenomenon. great topic to discuss!

Mr A T M
“some renowned authors have cited “facts” of people remembering their past lives- a clear case of reincarnation, though only determined by the subject’s stand.”

I don’t understand what you are saying here. You put quotes around “facts” as though you are skeptical, then claim this is a “clear case of reincarnation”, then further cast doubt by saying it’s subjective.

At any rate, the brain is a strange thing. A strange fact about death-related experiences is that they most often agree with the individual’s religious beliefs – no matter what religion. One interpretation (though by no means the only interpretation) of this is that the experience is delusion at best and fabrication at worst.

Mr Manmohan Dash
I do not believe reincarnation. What would it mean to have “reincarnated”?? What part of us will be reproduced and by what “methods” or mini-explanations are we going to corroborate it??

Also to some previous posts, I don’t think reincarnation is a strictly religious issue. Its more like a philosophical question. it might just have its root in religious myth. And it certainly has a place in such forums.

It may be, scientifically speaking, an unscientific belief. But then how can we decide to make a forum scientific, without allowing freethinking on just about anything. That will cut out pieces of the scientific boundaries and make science pertinent; to just a few type of methods, geometrical diagrams, rate of a process, causes of a disease.

Equally important is an earnestness to answer the urges and whims of anybody, howsoever uneducated someone might sound in posing a question.

Mr A T M
“What would it mean to have “reincarnated”??” I think it the belief presumes the existence of some identity to which a body belongs but is not the body itself (e.g. a “soul”). To be reincarnated, then, is for the body which has been assigned, if you will, to one soul to die, only to be replaced with a new body.

“What part of us will be reproduced …” See above. “… and by what “methods” or mini-explanations are we going to corroborate it??” A soul is beyond physical observation by definition, so I don’t know if the question of its existence is amenable to the methods of science.

Mr Manmohan Dash
Thats exactly the point I was trying to get at. If its going to be governed by the laws of nature, then, it must be amenable to the methods of science. Otherwise we can still talk about it, but without a purpose.

I still tend to think, a soul is physical in the sense, it exists, in the physical body and has no sense after the physical body is dead biologically. Its an abrupt end to the soul or the spirit.

By spirit I mean something that’s perceived by ourselves only and not by others. Because others can’t have our senses, our feelings etc. But this spirit or soul is still physical. We can feel ourselves, right? When the body is dead, these experiences or feelings have no meaning at all.

Its then only fabulous or childish or religious or philosophical, that these souls exist and go on, into another body. This is a clearly understood boundary now, that if this is accepted, it has to be accepted as an unscientific idea and not one that makes any sense to truly learned men (a definition per se; scientists).

It can still be discussed because, as I said its fabulous, its childish, its religious or mythical and its philosophical and interesting. — I rest my case …

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s