Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

So, Reincarnation Anyone?

Posted Jul 10, '13 at 6:11pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,439 posts

Knight

Not even parts. Where did the souls of said insects come from?

Oh, you mean as in all souls started as humans? That then would be a problem, yeah. I was thinking of a sort of big number of souls to begin with.

Then again, that concept would not go well at all with evolution, or how populations grow. Populations have clear dynamics, they don't fluctuate depending on how nice all other beings have been..
 

Posted Jul 10, '13 at 10:38pm

Minotaur55

Minotaur55

1,326 posts

Knight

I believe in reincarnation. It doesn't go hand and hand with physics, and I am not entirely sure if there is a place spirit energy based entities go when they pass on, but the transformation of energy is indeed true. Energy changes and is never destroyed. Well, rarely.

In the form of a human being, I am not sure. In the form of something else such as oxygen or matter, ok I might buy it. But I wont subscribe to it just yet. Things like seasons do have a cycle of life that they obey but human beings I am not sure due to our diverse and changing explanation of origin and life force.

All I can say is that the possibility of my energy being transformed into something else is highly logical but it returning to the state it was is previously is yet to be determined.

 

Posted Jul 11, '13 at 4:12am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,803 posts

Knight

I believe in reincarnation. It doesn't go hand and hand with physics, and I am not entirely sure if there is a place spirit energy based entities go when they pass on, but the transformation of energy is indeed true. Energy changes and is never destroyed. Well, rarely.


If we are to argue that a soul being some form of energy, the argument that energy changes states would actually go against reincarnation. For these memories and such of past lives to continue on that energy would have to remain unchanged to a certain degree.

As for the story. We would really need more details to truly debunk it. The first thing that would have to be ruled out would be if the parties involved are simply lying. but let's grant them that they aren't lying.

Further research on the story reveals this video is actually leaving out an important detail. His fascination with WWII and planes started at 18 months old when he was taken to an air museum and spend 3 hours in the WWII exhibit. It was after that these nightmares and such started. It's quite likely with such an obsession he would have managed to pick up all sorts of details along the way.
As such we would then have to find a way to rule out the possibility that he simply found these details without the parents knowledge and is running on false memories created from this information. Again I'm not saying this is the case, I'm simply saying this is just one more point that would have to be investigated an eliminated before we can start entertaining the notion of reincarnation. We would also have to ask why it would only start after being introduced to a museum exhibit.

Now after this obsession started with James his grandmother suggests he go to a therapist who then encouraged James to share his memories.
This suggests that James could have been either deliberately or unintentionally manipulated into having false memories of WWII events.

As the reincarnation idea becomes more ingrained a couple of people who have written books on the matter are brought in. At least one of which (Ian Stevenson) is known for asking leading question to youths. (Leading Questions: try to lead the respondent to your way of thinking.) This would seem to only further suggest the possibility of the existence of false memories based on true information that the boy was exposed to.

Now about his hits . (the points he got right)
Signing his name "James 3"
This one is not surprising given he had recently turned 3 years old at the time he started doing that. It would be a bit more interesting if he was signing the name "James III", but not by much.
Getting specific names. Given the likely hood James has either been intentionally or inadvertent lead on at this point, we really can't say much of anything. Did he really at first say this or was it something that was just similar?
Could he have picked up any of these details some place and the parties involved simply don't remember him doing so, or the parents are just mus-remembering events as well?
Could we also have a case of confirmation bias, where the parties involved are only remembering the hits James has gotten over the years but are forgetting all the misses? Of course given the nature of the way the story was told in the video any such misses would have likely been left out.

So would I call this debunked? No. Would I call this compelling evidence for reincarnation? No.
 

Posted Jul 11, '13 at 6:21am

partydevil

partydevil

5,243 posts

although mass extinction for example still would need more explanations.


this could be translated back to plagues somewhere else in the world if you want to.
there is a lot wrong with doing so, but a believer can do it.

Not even parts. Where did the souls of said insects come from?


god has souls in his paradise that go in a cycle from earth to his place.
if he wants more souls then he can create them.
see heaven as gods stockpile of souls to play with in the earth-realm.

As for the story. We would really need more details to truly debunk it.

i recently met someone who believes in spiritual stuff. but not the godly stuff.
i know she has really been digging into it professionally and found some good video's (multiple of about 25min each) explaining what and how this sort of never ending energy kinda reincarnation is.
i'll probably see her again somewhere this week. i will ask the links then.
 

Posted Jul 11, '13 at 7:22am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,439 posts

Knight

god has souls in his paradise that go in a cycle from earth to his place.
if he wants more souls then he can create them.
see heaven as gods stockpile of souls to play with in the earth-realm.

Or, souls are not always separate entities and when not incarnated, are part of one big common divine entity; chunks of said entity integrate a bodily envelope when a living being becomes alive (lots of problems and disputes to have about this point :P) and fusion back into the original mass when the envelope dies. So no direct reincarnation, but still sort of. (Isn't there some Eastern/Asian cult that thinks the souls lose individuality and integrate a common divine consciousness after death? I'm sure I've read abouot something like that..)
 

Posted Jul 11, '13 at 8:26am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

9,890 posts

A random thought..

Let's assume that reincarnation was in fact true. Would we then have to take a step back and re-evaluate certain laws...specifically those pertaining to assisted suicide and possibly murder?

For assisted suicide..an argument could then arise that the person wishing to die has become too miserable in their current life, and wishes to move on to the next to escape such misery. Of course..this decision could negatively impact those close to the person..but ultimately it is that person's decision. Would we then be allowed to re-open the doors back up to assisted suicide?

And for murder. There then becomes an argument opened up that the person did not commit the crime out of anger, spite, etc., but in order to allow the "victim" to move on to a better life, per se. Would laws pertaining to murder have to become readjusted to adhere to this argument?

 

Posted Jul 11, '13 at 11:30am

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,260 posts

Moderator

Would laws pertaining to murder have to become readjusted to adhere to this argument?


That's a really neat question, though I wonder why it wouldn't apply to, say, the standard view of the afterlife in Christianity. While heaven couldn't be classified as a better life, it would certainly classify as a better existence. In some sense, I'd say that the end result is even better than the reincarnation alternative. You get to retain your sense of identity, your memories, and get to experience eternal bliss.
So is it the fact that the 'person' would continue to live - that is, you can't actually do something to a person to end their life cycle. Is that what makes this question more salient in the framework of reincarnation than of heaven (or some comparable afterlife)?
 

Posted Jul 11, '13 at 1:08pm

Xzeno

Xzeno

2,354 posts

The math question can be easily answered by accepting that not all potential beings must always be incarnate. Since we're using the term soul, just imagine that a soul can hang out in a nonincarnate state for any length of time.

If the number of souls is greater than or equal to the maximum discrete beings a universe can support, it's fine.

Pang's stuff about suicide makes me think thus: if you're miserable in this life, the next is just going to be bad too. Reincarnation doesn't make sense without karma. Sure you can have fun pretending to have a meaningful discussion by talking about "just" reincarnation, but does it makes sense as an actual belief system? No.

Without a notion of karma, reincarnation could just be a thing that happens arbitrarily. But that's stupid. And doesn't reflect the actual philosophical and religious context of reincarnation.

You reincarnate [i]because

 

Posted Jul 11, '13 at 1:12pm

Xzeno

Xzeno

2,354 posts

Stupid phone.

Continuing: you reincarnate because of your karma. You have to live out the results of your actions. And that's terrible. Having both good karma and bad karma is bad. Because both cause you to endure existing. Karma is what ties you to the cycle of reincarnation. And escaping that cycle is good and being in it is bad.

 

Posted Jul 11, '13 at 7:24pm

MacII

MacII

1,369 posts

If you do believe in reincarnation, how would you explain it scientifically? If you don't, how would you debunk the above video?


What I mostly see is someone claims and put something together on video. I can do that. UFO's exist, and here is why.
 
Reply to So, Reincarnation Anyone?

You must be logged in to post a reply!