Therenis NO God

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by Fear_nam_Beanntan
I think the evidence he's talking about is people who describe past lives while under hypnotic regression. Sometimes the descriptions correspond to real people who died before they were born, but it could just be coincidence.

I find the evidence for miraculous cures such as those at Lourdes far more compelling.

The evidence from "past life regression" is interesting but there are too many alternative explanations for this phenomenon and straightforward fraud is certainly one of them.I prefer to accept the evidence from case studies involving those who claim to recall previous lives providing that these studies are carried out using rigorous scientific techniques.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
You have tried to make a comparison between orthodox christianity which is based on the doctrine of justification by faith alone...

I wonder how many academics you can find who support the idea of original sin or vicarious atonement for example?A whole lot less than support the idea of karma and reincarnation that's for sure.

Quit calling Protestantism orthodox Christianity! Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy represent orthodox Christianity; justification by faith alone and vicarious punishment are 16th century inventions. Throw into that pile unconditional election, total depravity, fiduciary faith, limited atonement, irresistable grace, imputed righteousness, and a whole lot of other crap that detracts from personal responsibility.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

And there are probably more Christian academics out there than there are academics who believe in karma and reincarnation.

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by Fear_nam_Beanntan

Quit calling Protestantism orthodox Christianity! Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy represent orthodox Christianity; justification by faith alone and vicarious punishment are 16th century inventions. Throw into that pile unconditional election, total depravity, fiduciary faith, limited atonement, irresistable grace, imputed righteousness, and a whole lot of other crap that detracts from personal responsibility.

Aye on your bike sunshine.Orthodox belief is still prevalent in this day and age and whether you like to admit it or not there are still christians for whom such archaic doctrines are very much part of their belief system.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
Aye on your bike sunshine.Orthodox belief is still prevalent in this day and age and whether you like to admit it or not there are still christians for whom such archaic doctrines are very much part of their belief system.

I was well aware of that. But personally, I prefer those Christian doctrines which are 4 times as archaic, such as justification by faith which works through love, conditional election, partial depravity, dogmatic faith, universal atonement, resistable grace, and infused righteousnes.

[-Sigurd-]

The above clearly indicates how ill informed you are about this question because in fact there is a wealth of evidence for reincarnation which has been gleaned from various sources but in particular the case studies of those who claim to have a recollection of previous lives.These case studies have been carried out using rigorous scientific techniques and the evidence which they have provided to support the case for reincarnation is compelling

Actually, I said that there was no evidence that did not have a more convincing alternative explanation...and this is indeed the case as we find it. I am familiar with a lot of 'evidence' of reincarnation, the problem is it has been debunked. For the amazing 'evidence' of reincarnation can be replicated - including all the 'correlations' with real life deceased individuals - using randomly chosen fictional stories.

and while your personal opinion is that all of these investigations are flawed-everyone involved is either lying or deluded (which in my book makes you every bit as misguided as the most orthodox christian)-

This is a fallacious argument. Remember the Spiritualists? Was all the supportive evidence from investigations into Spiritualist phenomena flawed? Was everyone involved either lying or deluded? Would a person who answered Yes! to the above be "every bit as misguided as the most orthodox Christian"? It is the same scenario we have with reincarnation and karma.

What exactly is the difference between rebirth and reincarnation? You yourself seemed happy enough to use reincarnation in a Buddhist context before now, but apparently the use of the word is suddenly a mark of ignorance. Everywhere in the literature on Buddhism, this word "reincarnation" keeps cropping up(as well as 'rebirth'). Strange - it seems the worlds authorities on Buddhism are all just as "ignorant" as me. Faced with the words rebirth and reincarnation, my question is what is it that is being either reborn or reincarnated? How does the identity of one distinct physical entity become the identity of a completely different physical entity, without recourse to anything like a non-physical 'soul'? Do 'reincarnation scientists' have any ideas on that, any way at all to even begin to answer this question in physical terms? Does 'rebirth' answer this?

Even if we consider the possibility of reincarnation - if for the sake of argument we suppose that somehow, all the logical inconsistencies implied by it could be overcome - we are still left with the fact that there is not a single shred of reliable scientific evidence to support it. None of the 'evidence' produced by your sources survives the test of Occams razor.

Well you haven't provided one shred of textual evidence to support your argument that scientific consensus is opposed to the idea of reincarnation-that isn't what you know to be true,that is what you would like to think were true.

Given the lack of reliable, conclusive evidence for reincarnation and karma, and the total silence on the question of how on earth this system 'meshes' with the natural, physical world, I hardly think the onus is on me to produce a list of scientists who say they don't believe it. Rather, it is on you to produce evidence of mainstream scientific support of the idea. Quoting the occasional "ex-sceptic" scientist (same argument often used by apologists of other religions) doesn't cut it.

[-Sigurd-]

I have to remind you at this point - my argument here is not that all religious beliefs are necessarily false. I am just making the point that Buddhism is essentially a belief system just like other religions, not a pure philosophy devoid of the errors and irrationalities of other religions.

You have tried to make a comparison between orthodox christianity which is based on the doctrine of justification by faith alone with Buddhist philosophy which requires it's adherents to believe nothing which does not conform to logic and reason.

Nope - what I did was bring out their basic commonalities - in order to demonstrate that we are dealing with two different belief systems - not science/rationality/buddhism (including reincarnation and karma) on one hand and faith based belief systems on the other.

The two systems of belief differ fundamentally

Well there it is: systems of belief Andy...you are starting to get the idea it seems.

and there is no paradox with me holding a belief in the validity of certain precepts of Buddhist philosophy which,as I have shown are supported both by personal testimony and the findings of numerous scientists (not just flakes,although I have read a few who fall into that category),and criticising certain christian doctrines as being illogical and superstitious.

I never said there was a contradiction in you finding Fears beliefs to be incompatible with your own. Of course they are. Buddhism and Christianity are incompatible belief systems.Nothing whatsoever remarkable about that, but they are both belief systems whose basic concepts are items of faith, not scientific proof.