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.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t know, that seems very similar to agnostic atheism to me. Is there any situation where you would act differently if you’d consider yourself agnostic atheist instead of apathetic agnostic?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t know, that seems very similar to agnostic atheism to me. Is there any situation where you would act differently if you’d consider yourself agnostic atheist instead of apathetic agnostic?
deleted by creator