Challenge: I'm willing to convert if.......

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you sure ? German Nazi methods of automation and poison gases killed more people efficiently than the religious zealots armed with swords and pikes.

Yes, I'm sure.

I posted a link to some stats a few pages back, but as awful as the Nazis were, the death toll of the Holocaust was nowhere near the death toll of the Christianization of the New World by Spain, as one example.

 

[Revoltingest]

Obviously it is not authentic religion then. It is more of an organized religion that deals with the peripheral rather than the core.

How does one discern an "authentic"
religion from one that isn't?

 

[sayak83]

I clicked that link and didn't see the critical reviews of the interview you posted from the psychology podcast, so I looked at "Children's Reports of Past Life Memories: A Review" by Jim B. Tucker MD. It had a section under the title, "Questions about the cases" which began "Some have challenged this work..." but was cut off after about a paragraph. I'm guessing the rest is behind a paywall.

ROFL! Evolution is one of the most well evidenced scientific theories and it's mechanisms mostly fairly well understood. By comparison you have not addressed my question concerning the neccesary isolation from idea contamination and instead thrown an ad-hominem at me, proposed a hypothesis which competes with other hypothesis such as ESP and demon projection which explain the alleged facts just as well, and it is *YOU* who have defaulted to your preferred religious narrative.

Hardly, if any of the contaminants are older than 6000 years the Bible's case is thrown out. See how easy it is to answer a question rather than make an ad-hominem when there is solid evidence for well understood mechanisms?

Exactly, Ignorance of the means of information transmission does not warrant a leap to the trap of one's preffered religious conclusion (in your case reincarnation) in my view.

I'm no expert, but I'm open-minded up to a point. But so far you aree preferring appeal to authority, ad-hominem, and leaping to your preffered religious conclusion to adequately explaining away reasonable doubt in my view.

Watch your own podcast from 39:07 onwards, the psychologist is asked why are these memories so fleeting and he states, "typically they lose these memories when they lose all childhood memories." So if soul -> conciousness -> memories why does this process stop when they lose all childhood memories if the soul is still there, stilll able to effect consicousness and therefore still able to generate these memories? It is a major piece of contrary evidence to your conclusion of reincarnation in my view.

It's not critical review of the interview. The link is a list of 30-40 peer reviewed publications on past life memory research. I was asking you to read the papers to understand the details of the methodology used.
I cannot do your own homework regarding the details of methodology for you.

Your answer regarding the 6000 year thing is technically incorrect. The idea they would peddle is that the contaminants make the dating useless, and choosing what is contaminant and what is pure is itself biased by the "religious ideology" of evolutionist. Etc etc.
The point I am making is simple. You need to personally check the case studies and show that adequate precautions were not taken making the results invalid (which seems improbable as the works today span multiple independent research groups all over the world). You cannot just handwave and say "but they can never be sure".
I am appealing to scientific authority. Obviously. I prefer to believe that work done by trained scientists on a topic are generally believable unless falsified by other works by equally trained scientists.
Because beyond the age of 10, the brain undergoes a huge pruning of neural connections when many memories and traits acquired during childhood are lost. This is a general part of development. Brain chooses efficiency over large information storage as it transitions to adulthood. Clearly explicit padt life memories go into the recycle bin at that time as well. This phenomenon is well known. Check any developmental literature.

 

[danieldemol]

Because beyond the age of 10, the brain undergoes a huge pruning of neural connections when many memories and traits acquired during childhood are lost.

So you are telling me that memories which survived the death of an entire brain through soul generated conciousness can't survive the death of a few brain cells during pruning with a straight face?
Again if the soul is still there exerting any effect after pruning the memories would simply be expected to regenerate the same as they did after entire brain death in my view.

 

[danieldemol]

Innate love is the natural innocence and trust that babies and toddlers have. They have no prejudices, no fears, no worries. They're free and generally happy -- until the world presses down with rules, and lessons, and strangers, and NO, NO, NOs.
They fairly quickly become a product of their environment.

So how would this process of learning lessons you describe have an effect on memories so powerful they allegedly survived the complete destruction of the brain?

 

[Spice]

So how would this process of learning lessons you describe have an effect on memories so powerful they allegedly survived the complete destruction of the brain?

The same way it overtakes trust and love. It smothers it down as it's replaced with the present.

 

[danieldemol]

The same way it overtakes trust and love. It smothers it down as it's replaced with the present.

But our memories are replaced with the present because new pathways are formed in the brain in response to inputs from external stimulus as old unused pathways decompose.
Are you alleging that a soul is constructed of nerves which decompose like those in the brain and have their pathways replaced by new ones?
If it is possible for the soul to decompose how do we know it doesn't for example die by the age of 3 since that is when these memories (which are the only evidence we have being used to suggest the soul even exists in the first place) fade away according to the psychologist? After all that which decomposes must eventually die right?

 

[Spice]

But our memories are replaced with the present because new pathways are formed in the brain in response to inputs from external stimulus as old unused pathways decompose.
Are you alleging that a soul is constructed of nerves which decompose like those in the brain and have their pathways replaced by new ones?
If it is possible for the soul to decompose how do we know it doesn't for example die by the age of 3 since that is when these memories (which are the only evidence we have being used to suggest the soul even exists in the first place) fade away according to the psychologist? After all that which decomposes must eventually die right?

IMO, our soul, our speck of God, is not connected to our human ego in any way other than a GPS system of sorts. It knows what the human mind should think and lead the body to do, but that ego doesn't have to follow any more than we have to turn when our guidance system says turn.

A newborn child has not yet developed an ego, so the soul is the stronger. But as that child encounters the worldly life, the ego develops and grows. As long as the human cravings are nurtured by the world, the ego is soft and pliable. Feed me, hold me, keep me clean and warm, and there's nothing to build a wall against. But by 3, that wall of ego is the master. It usually takes control during the "terrible twos", and that GPS/soul is ignored more and more until it is nothing but subconscious. With proper nurturing the soul learns to work with and around the new ego and a strong conscious is noted in the little human. From there, who knows......

 

[danieldemol]

IMO, our soul, our speck of God, is not connected to our human ego in any way other than a GPS system of sorts. It knows what the human mind should think and lead the body to do, but that ego doesn't have to follow any more than we have to turn when our guidance system says turn.

Great, so we should expect knowledge to regress with the development of the ego at age 2-4, so why are babies born knowing nothing more than instinct? Talking should be a piece of cake if they are guided by a speck of God that knows exactly what to think and do in my view.

 

[Spice]

Great, so we should expect knowledge to regress with the development of the ego at age 2-4, so why are babies born knowing nothing more than instinct? Talking should be a piece of cake if they are guided by a speck of God that knows exactly what to think and do in my view.

Ahhhh, but you're trying to mix things of heaven with things of the world. They are separate.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, but from the Big Bang onwards, everything can ne explained to some degree of certainty (Nothing is 100%) by natural or scientific laws, but the miracles described by religious people over the past have NO degree of certainty.

Look, there are fanatics and ridiculous assumptions about scripture in many walks of religion. From my thought process, if I thought it was ok to join any religion I guess I'd feel free to do so. But I don't because what I have found is the best for me. (ah well, take care.) Oh, and pursuant to the subject, the idea that all that information is compacted about direction in a cell which becomes a full grown body is simply more than human reasoning can resolve, scientific or not. That is how I look at it now. So while "laws" may be cited, it doesn't mean that someone above did not start the law from operating.

 

[chinu]

Definitely, if my father said he was a magician but couldn't show me any magic, then I would consider him false.

Of course, you can consider your father a false-magician, but NOT a false-father.

As I already said in my previous reply that:
There's a Father -nd- Son relationship between God -nd- His creation.
There's NOT Magician -nd- Audience relationship between God -nd- His creation.

Creator-father is by-default the owner of everything. Whereby, showing road shows, or magic shows is a shameful act

 

[danieldemol]

Ahhhh, but you're trying to mix things of heaven with things of the world. They are separate.

So souls (things of heaven) and bodies containing brains with a capacity to have memories (things of the world) are separate and do not mix? Then reincarnation is debunked, why didn't you say so from the start?

 

[ajay0]

I see no reason at all why clear thinking and compassion would be "religious values" or why such would require religion in any way.

In fact, I'ld say that "clear thinking" requires the exact opposite. It requires free thinking, which is the opposite of religious vaues which tend to be assertions from authority, unquestionable and confined to the "religious box".

'O bhikshus and wise men, just as a goldsmith would test his gold by burning, cutting, and rubbing it, so you must examine my words and accept them, but not merely out of reverence for me.' ~ Buddha , ghanavyuha sutra (Sutra of Dense Array)

Buddha emphasized personal observation and experience to examine the utility of a teaching, using the example of the goldsmith . If it is useful and non-harmful , use it ; if not , discard it.

A knife can be used for surgery by a doctor or for a criminal to commit murder. So the state of mind is also an important factor to consider in the usage of such tools. A certain training and discipline of the mind is needed to ensure such tools are used for the right purpose. This is the task of authentic religion or value systems.

“Science and technology are powerful tools, but we must decide how best to use them.” ~ Dalai Lama XIV

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

'O bhikshus and wise men, just as a goldsmith would test his gold by burning, cutting, and rubbing it, so you must examine my words and accept them, but not merely out of reverence for me.' ~ Buddha , ghanavyuha sutra (Sutra of Dense Array)

Buddha emphasized personal observation and experience to examine the utility of a teaching, using the example of the goldsmith . If it is useful and non-harmful , use it ; if not , discard it.

A knife can be used for surgery by a doctor or for a criminal to commit murder. So the state of mind is also an important factor to consider in the usage of such tools. A certain training and discipline of the mind is needed to ensure such tools are used for the right purpose. This is the task of authentic religion or value systems.

“Science and technology are powerful tools, but we must decide how best to use them.” ~ Dalai Lama XIV

You're missing my point it seems.

If morality is a matter of reasoning and discussion based in empathy, then why would one require any religious writings to do it?

I'm perfectly capable of moral reasoning and have no use or need for any religious writings, beliefs, etc to do so.

 

[ajay0]

You're missing my point it seems.

If morality is a matter of reasoning and discussion based in empathy, then why would one require any religious writings to do it?

The religious teachings may provide the philosophy and thought process for moral conduct and behavior.

The Nazis were driven by philosophies of nihilism and Darwinism to give substance and justification to their ideologies related to violence and cruelty.

“If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone.

I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment; or as the Nazi liked to say, ‘of Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”- Viktor Frankl

I'm perfectly capable of moral reasoning and have no use or need for any religious writings, beliefs, etc to do so.

You may be a great man, but it is not reasonable to expect others to be the same as well.

There are many educated serial criminals who were capable of coherent reasoning but still went ahead with their crimes due to lack of emotional self-regulation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The religious teachings may provide the philosophy and thought process for moral conduct and behavior.

Or it may not. The question is not if it "may". The question is if it is needed.

The Nazis were driven by philosophies of nihilism and Darwinism to give substance and justification to their ideologies related to violence and cruelty.

So? Jihadi's are driven by islamic ideologies.
Even buddhism isn't free of religious violence, as I'm sure you know.

If anything, these examples show that "religious philosophy" are just as flawed as any other ideologies when it comes to being used as a basis for morality and moral teaching.

You may be a great man, but it is not reasonable to expect others to be the same as well.

I'm not a "great man" by any means.
I just actively try not to be blinded by ideology.

When it comes to morals, I take a step back and look at the actual evidence and actively try to make a reasonable argument.
Whenever some type of unquestionable command or axiom comes into play, it's a giant red flag for me.

As I see it, any moral judgement or pronouncement requires and actual REASON. Some reasoning / argument to underpin it.
"this is (im)moral, because...." and the reason given may not be an assertion from authority or some axiom from some ideology or whatever.

It must be a reasoned argument, supported by actual evidence. Which in itself should be questionable and in fact questioned, defended, discussed, demonstrated.

There are many educated serial criminals who were capable of coherent reasoning but still went ahead with their crimes due to lack of emotional self-regulation.

Yeah, we call such people psychopaths / sociopaths.
There is something diagnosably wrong with them. Such people are not the standard.

 

[sayak83]

So you are telling me that memories which survived the death of an entire brain through soul generated conciousness can't survive the death of a few brain cells during pruning with a straight face?
Again if the soul is still there exerting any effect after pruning the memories would simply be expected to regenerate the same as they did after entire brain death in my view.

The pruning eliminates the memories from explicit conscious access. They remain in the alay vijnana.
ālaya-vijñāna.

 

[SalixIncendium]

So you are telling me that memories which survived the death of an entire brain through soul generated conciousness can't survive the death of a few brain cells during pruning with a straight face?
Again if the soul is still there exerting any effect after pruning the memories would simply be expected to regenerate the same as they did after entire brain death in my view.

The pruning eliminates the memories from explicit conscious access. They remain in the alay vijnana.
ālaya-vijñāna.

In addition to what @sayak83 said, it may also be helpful to move away from the idea of the Abrahamic concept of a "soul." I feel this is a barrier in your understanding of the concept of reincarnation.

 

[YoursTrue]

Morality is not synonymous with religion though religion emphasizes morality.

Andrei Sakharov was an atheistic nuclear physicist, who sought universal disarmament of nuclear weapons on the grounds of moral and civilized behavior and conduct.

'I tend to believe that only moral criteria, coupled with mental objectivity, can serve as a sort of compass in the cross-currents of these complex problems. ' ~ Andrei Sakharov

Moral behavior can thus stem from clear thinking and compassion, which need not necessarily be religious values, but are universal in nature.

didn't happen though, did it? No, many people love their weapons, their guns and bombs.