Why are you so sure about this? Believing there is no reincarnation is just a religious dogma of Christianity or rather all abrahamitic religions and therefore deeply engraved in our culture so we don’t even consider other possibilities. Similar to how in buddhist and hinduistic cultures reincarnation is the default way of imagining life before birth and after death.
Sure? Christianity? Nah, atheism. I just don’t walk around believing stuff just because other people believe it. And if reincarnation is real I don’t see it as coming back, you’re a different person after all.
Same as with God? I don’t think so. Don’t you think there are things that cannot be proven or disproven? My point is the default position depends on the cultural background.
Believing there is no reincarnation is just a religious dogma of Christianity
I don’t know that that’s true.
We as a society don’t know what happens when we die, conscious-wise. To state “we definitely do come back” or “we definitely don’t” would be incorrect, just like saying “there’s definitely aliens” vs “there definitely are not”.
However, we can use evidence we’ve gathered over thousands of years of existence and make assumptions. Unless I’m mistaken, there’s little evidence that has been accepted by the scientific community (Western or Eastern) to support reincarnation, so to say that “we don’t come back” is a Christian dogma is a little unfair.
To be clear I don’t have a strong opinion on reincarnation. I’ve heard compelling stories that are hard to explain otherwise, but I feel like we’d have been able to gather at least some concrete data on it over the span of our existence.
That’s exactly my point. What’s the concrete data against reincarnation would someone from a buddhist culture ask (probably even when they aren’t religious). I am just saying what we accept as default and for what we demand evidence depends on the cultural background.
I might have formulated it exxagerated. But believing in “YOLO” is as evidence based as believing in reincarnation.
Similar as atheism is a belief as well: believing that there is no god. How do they know? It seems my point of view is more agnostic than most here.
Words like “atheism” or “agnostic” make sense as shorthands for everyday conversations or labelling, but if you want to be rigorous about it, it makes more sense to use 4 categories:
Gnostic theist: I know there’s a God, I’ve met Him, I feel it, I have faith, etc.
Agnostic theist: I don’t know if there’s a god or not, but I prefer to believe there’s one
Agnostic atheist: if we don’t know if there’s a god or not, there’s no reason to believe there’s one. Do you assume there’s an invisible giant teapot orbiting Earth because there’s no proof to the contrary?
Gnostic atheist: a god can’t possibly exist, the concept of a god is illogical, etc.
I’m agnostic atheist, but maybe there could a firm reasoning for the gnostic atheist position. I don’t know, I would have to read and think about it more.
Brother, you and I are the universe recycled / reincarnated over and over again living life one day at a time like a real metaverse. This consciousness is a dream, although we can’t tell because we’re inside the dream. Unlike the dreams in our sleep, biting this finger hurts for real, but real is a thing you perceive just like how we perceive money to be real in an engaging game of Monopoly.
This is the way. Life can only be recognized as such in the context where an absence of life is also present, but ultimately both (life and no-life) are just interpretations of what we call existence.
I don’t know but there are probably explanations. One that I could imagine is that there really is only one consciousness or soul that splits itself up in as many parts as it wants to experience the universe and itself.
You could ask questions like that about the belief that there is no reincarnation or soul as well. Where does consciousness come from? What is it? How can electrochemical reactions be the equivalent of tasting a pizza?
I don’t believe in a soul. That is definitely not religious dogma.
The idea that reincarnation is the default and one would have to be indoctrinated against it is… I would say, a very interesting position to take, if I’m being polite.
I am rather saying it is nothing we can prove or disprove and both views ar equally legit. It just seems to us one view is more legit because of our cultural background.
Because there is no coming back.
We only get one ride in this rollercoaster and half of us want to make the ride living hell for the rest of us.
Half? Try an alarmingly small number and they are damn good at it.
Cannot step in the same river twice. Nor with the same feet.
Why are you so sure about this? Believing there is no reincarnation is just a religious dogma of Christianity or rather all abrahamitic religions and therefore deeply engraved in our culture so we don’t even consider other possibilities. Similar to how in buddhist and hinduistic cultures reincarnation is the default way of imagining life before birth and after death.
Sure? Christianity? Nah, atheism. I just don’t walk around believing stuff just because other people believe it. And if reincarnation is real I don’t see it as coming back, you’re a different person after all.
No, it is pretty much the default position until you can prove that it happens.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Especially if declining to look.
Same as with God? I don’t think so. Don’t you think there are things that cannot be proven or disproven? My point is the default position depends on the cultural background.
I don’t know that that’s true.
We as a society don’t know what happens when we die, conscious-wise. To state “we definitely do come back” or “we definitely don’t” would be incorrect, just like saying “there’s definitely aliens” vs “there definitely are not”.
However, we can use evidence we’ve gathered over thousands of years of existence and make assumptions. Unless I’m mistaken, there’s little evidence that has been accepted by the scientific community (Western or Eastern) to support reincarnation, so to say that “we don’t come back” is a Christian dogma is a little unfair.
To be clear I don’t have a strong opinion on reincarnation. I’ve heard compelling stories that are hard to explain otherwise, but I feel like we’d have been able to gather at least some concrete data on it over the span of our existence.
That’s exactly my point. What’s the concrete data against reincarnation would someone from a buddhist culture ask (probably even when they aren’t religious). I am just saying what we accept as default and for what we demand evidence depends on the cultural background.
I might have formulated it exxagerated. But believing in “YOLO” is as evidence based as believing in reincarnation.
Similar as atheism is a belief as well: believing that there is no god. How do they know? It seems my point of view is more agnostic than most here.
Words like “atheism” or “agnostic” make sense as shorthands for everyday conversations or labelling, but if you want to be rigorous about it, it makes more sense to use 4 categories:
Gnostic theist: I know there’s a God, I’ve met Him, I feel it, I have faith, etc.
Agnostic theist: I don’t know if there’s a god or not, but I prefer to believe there’s one
Agnostic atheist: if we don’t know if there’s a god or not, there’s no reason to believe there’s one. Do you assume there’s an invisible giant teapot orbiting Earth because there’s no proof to the contrary?
Gnostic atheist: a god can’t possibly exist, the concept of a god is illogical, etc.
I’m agnostic atheist, but maybe there could a firm reasoning for the gnostic atheist position. I don’t know, I would have to read and think about it more.
Brother, you and I are the universe recycled / reincarnated over and over again living life one day at a time like a real metaverse. This consciousness is a dream, although we can’t tell because we’re inside the dream. Unlike the dreams in our sleep, biting this finger hurts for real, but real is a thing you perceive just like how we perceive money to be real in an engaging game of Monopoly.
This is the way. Life can only be recognized as such in the context where an absence of life is also present, but ultimately both (life and no-life) are just interpretations of what we call existence.
So where do the „extra“ humans come from in these religions? What I mean is the increasing number of people being alive at the same time.
I don’t know but there are probably explanations. One that I could imagine is that there really is only one consciousness or soul that splits itself up in as many parts as it wants to experience the universe and itself.
You could ask questions like that about the belief that there is no reincarnation or soul as well. Where does consciousness come from? What is it? How can electrochemical reactions be the equivalent of tasting a pizza?
There’s a long line to get in.
I don’t believe in a soul. That is definitely not religious dogma.
The idea that reincarnation is the default and one would have to be indoctrinated against it is… I would say, a very interesting position to take, if I’m being polite.
I am rather saying it is nothing we can prove or disprove and both views ar equally legit. It just seems to us one view is more legit because of our cultural background.
An arrogant position even.
Sounds rather arrogant to me to think there is a default position for something like that.