• saimen@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • agavaa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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.

    • Rothe@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Believing there is no reincarnation is just a religious dogma of Christianity

      No, it is pretty much the default position until you can prove that it happens.

      • Digit@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

        Especially if declining to look.

      • saimen@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

    • papalonian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • saimen@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • Danquebec@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          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.

          • saimen@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Interesting categories, but I don’t find myself in any of them: We don’t know if there is a god therefore I neither believe in its existence nor in its non-existence because it doesn’t matter anyway. If god(s) exist they either don’t affect human lives or they do it without letting us know how and why. In both cases there is no reasons to change anything in my life.

            I think this view is called apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism.

      • fakir@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • IntriguedIceberg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

    • Alfons@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      Deutsch
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • saimen@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        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?

    • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • saimen@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • saimen@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Sounds rather arrogant to me to think there is a default position for something like that.