Hindu, I believe in it because it actually makes sense. I know there is a lot of nonsense in Hinduism like it’s there in every religion. Because religions are ultimately jsut tools to power. But i like Hinduism for some of the core beliefs. Some of the important things I like to believe.
- Change is the only constant in the universe, nothing else stays conatsnt.
- God is a construct that is unknowable by definition, it’s larger than the largest thing, and it’s smaller than the smallest thing. It’s infinitly big and infinitesimally small at the same time.
- The morals of how to live life is not something that is defined by God, and God doesn’t care one way or the other if someone follows any.
That being said I understand this is not traditional Hinduism. But I find this to the core with anyone that is willing to discuss Hinduism at length will reach at.
Atheist, thought a lot about it.
deleted by creator
How did you come to this realisation that we all reincarnate?
That’s a good question. It took me a long time to come to this realization so there isn’t any one thing that I can point to, but I tried to summarize my thoughts on the matter as best I could. Be warned that there is a lot of junk “science” out there. If you research this, try to stay away from anything that sounds too fantastical. No one knows anything about this as fact, not even me. These are just my observations and conclusions, but I think it’s important to keep an open mind on these matters and pursue further research into the topic.
-
Carl Jung theorized about a “Collective Unconsciousness” that all of humanity shares. He noticed that completely separated cultures tended to have the same thoughts at the same time. Around the same time the ancient Chinese were dreaming up dragons, so too were the europeans despite not having any contact with each other. Many religions share the same stories, like The Flood. I theorize that humans in fact share some sort of “soul” from which the individual is born. The collective unconsciousness is a fragment of that “shared soul”. https://www.britannica.com/science/collective-unconscious
-
Joseph Campbell developed the “monomyth” or the story of The Hero With A Thousand Faces. Dr. Campbell noted that accross all cultures, across all time, humans tend to tell the same generalized story of a nobody that is born nowhere special that receives a call to adventure. They gain a mentor and learn to control a supernatural power. They go on to face temptations and challenges, have a revelation about reality, transform, atone for past sins, defeat the ultimate evil and ride off into the sunset (I’m generalizing here for simplicity). Over and over and over humans tell this story. Beowulf, Tangled, The Hunger Games, Star Wars, Harry Potter, The Wheel of Time, Moana, Theseus, Odysseus, Jesus Christ, Krishna of Hindu belief, Spiderman, and on and on. The Monomyth does not specifically address reincarnation, however I posit that this cycle is not just a coincidence, but a fundamental aspect of human life. We are telling the story of how we reincarnate over and over and face and overcome lifes challenges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero’s_journey
-
More recently, Dr. Ian Stevenson and Dr. Jim Tucker have used the scientific method to exaustively study chidren who claim to remember details from a past life. When presented with such a child, they did their best to discredit the child and determine how the child could have learned their knowledge through regular, non-spiritual means (listening to the radio, watching TV, reading old letters, etc.). Their research is iron clad and has not been discredited yet, and has been subject to lots of scrutiny. What they ended up with was about 2,000 cases of children who seemingly remember details from past lives that they couldn’t possibly have learned in this life. It is fascinating research. Neither doctor has explicitly stated that reincarnation is definitely real, but they have both examined the evidence and believe that it merrits yet further research. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/202112/evaluating-the-evidence-reincarnation
Lastly, your specific subjective experience means that it is possible for the universe to form you specifically from basically nothing. The only evidence you need to prove this fact is your own mind (I think, therefore I am). The specific mechanisms of this formation aren’t actually important and I won’t pretend to know what they are. If “you” can form once, is it so absurd to believe that it could happen twice? If twice, why not an infinite number of times?
Lastly, Science tells us that the universe formed itself and all matter, presumably from a state of non-being.
[citation needed]
If “you” can form once, is it so absurd to believe that it could happen twice? If twice, why not an infinite number of times?
I don’t believe it’s impossible. But I’d put the odds of the exact same atoms arranging themselves in the exact same way so as to form another “you” in roughly the same ballpark as me being able to touch the palm of my hand to a 6" thick wall and have it pass right through. Both my hand and the wall are mostly empty space, so it’s possible for the atoms to all align in the correct way for it to happen, but the odds are infinitesimally small.
deleted by creator
Which part would you like a citation for? I am happy to provide.
The part I quoted: that “the universe formed itself and all matter, presumably from a state of non-being.” I take particular issue with 1) the “formed itself” language, because it sounds a bit like you’re referring to the universe as an entity that can act of its own accord, which I don’t believe is correct, and 2) “presumably from a state of non-being,” because it sounds like you believe science has actually established that there was likely a “state of non-being,” when I don’t know that a “state of non-being” is even something that makes any sense to discuss in a scientific manner. So if you had citations to corroborate the entire statement, that would be ideal.
Edit: and your second paragraph strays pretty far from the original topic of reincarnation. Yes, in a many-worlds interpretation of the cosmos, there are infinitely many copies of me, and an infinite number of them have put their hands through walls as if by magic. But this is pretty different from the commonly-accepted concept of reincarnation, in that you aren’t saying that we are reborn again only when we die, but rather that we exist in infinitely many universes simultaneously.
deleted by creator
-
I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
I was born into, but as I grew, I had to know for myself it was true or not. I did a lot of praying and reading, and one day received an answer to my prayers. In this case, the best I can describe is a flow of light and knowledge, and a confirmation to my Spirit that it was true.
From then on I’ve had more experiences, but that was the start, and that is why I continue on the path I’m on.
What is your Spirit? Can you describe its properties and offer some evidence to show the rest of us that it exists? How do you know you received an answer to your prayers? How might someone else replicate this experience?
There certainly is a replication process, as found in the Book of Moroni (a section within the Book of Mormon), chapter 10, verses 4 & 5
"4.And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."
As for knowing it was my Spirit feeling an impression, it’s much the same as people knew what emotions were long before we could see activity in the brain; through experience we can recognize and understand it even though it does not as yet appear on a scan.
To paraphrase a church scholar Hugh Nibley, it’s not that science and https://apps.apple.com/us/app/gospel-library/id598329798 contractadict, but that incomplete religion and incomplete science do. Complete religion and complete science work fine together.
For properties, we go to Doctrine and Covenants (another standard work in our church), section 93, verse 29
“29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be”
In other words, the building blocks are intelligences. Now, when those intelligences come together, they can be formed into a Spirit.
Moving to section 131, verses 7 and 8
"7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter"
To reframe my experience then, the Holy Ghost, a member of the Godhead along with Jesus Christ and The Father (who are separate beings), spoke to my Spirit in a way I can sense and understand internally but, much like emotions before brain scanning, I cannot show.
Certainly happy to answer more questions (though I will be on the road today).
There is an app that contains all our standard works and will make finding these and other references easier. I believe there is also a section for Gospel Topics
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/gospel-library/id598329798
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.lds.ldssa&hl=en_US&gl=US
Every single one of the things you mentioned are claims, not evidence. Maybe I can rephrase my question:
When I buy a delicious Share Size Snickers bar at the 7-11, I see on the package that it claims that the bar weighs 3.86 ounces. It feels a little light to me; I am skeptical of the fact that this particular Share Size Snickers bar weighs what it claims on the package. My options are:
- Take the weight printed on the package as the truth and don’t question it any further;
- Put the bar on a scale and measure its weight independently, to confirm whether the weight is correct.
With regard to religion, you appear to be doing only #1, and I’m asking how I can do #2. What are the tools and evidence I can use, akin to the scale, that are independent of the religious text (= the Snickers wrapper) and can show me that your claims are valid?
The same question could apply to emotions. How do you put it on a scale and measure it’s weight? As a sufferer of mental illness myself, the same question applies there: how do you put mental illness on a scale?
Yet, well before the advent of CT scans and other medical wonders, people didn’t doubt the existence of emotion or mental problems.
They may not have known the cause, but they understood them based on their experience and the effect on behavior.
Emotions can’t be seen, but you can see the effect they have on a person. In the same way, no, you can’t put Spirit on a scale, but you can see it’s effect in people’s lives and feel it through experience
OK, so it sounds like you’re freely admitting that there is currently no test, evidence, measurement, or other way that you can show the truth of your claims.
Edit: Also, I don’t think I’ve ever seen what you’re talking about regarding seeing a spirit’s effect in people’s lives, and I definitely haven’t felt it myself.
Therefore, I claim that while I believe you are being honest and genuinely think you feel a spirit, it doesn’t actually exist, and instead you have been indoctrinated into a cult (which you freely admit you were born into), and that indoctrination has programmed you to believe things that don’t actually exist. I’d like to find a way to determine which of us is correct. How do we do that?
Obviously you can’t prove it one way or another. That’s the whole point. Are you new?
Obviously you can’t prove it one way or another. That’s the whole point. Are you new?
Nope, I’m old.
But I prefer not to base my life choices on things that are unprovable, and one of us has claims that are backed by at least some amount of evidence (the existence of missionaries, documentation of brainwashing techniques used by the particular church that OP belongs to, documentation of the financial motivations driving said church to continue brainwashing people, the sheer utter logical ridiculousness of the specific claims of that church), and the other does not. So I’ll continue taking the default, rational, skeptical position, until there is sufficient evidence to do otherwise.
Agnostic atheist. Sometimes I kind of forget religion even exists, it just seems like such a non-issue to me.
I’m an atheist. I find all the religious arguments deeply nonsensical.
Strong agnostic, weak theist.
I think God’s existence is ultimately unknowable, and those who claim to know one way or another are using wishful thinking to plug the gaps. But I was raised Catholic and still nominally believe in some sort of deity, though it wavers day to day.
Aliens? Probably. We know planets are common and there’s nothing to suggest that life could only evolve once. I’m skeptical of claims that any are actively visiting Earth, though.
Fairies, pixies, unicorns, djinn, etc.? No way. Gods at least have some ontological arguments in their favor: for example, is it more parsimonious to describe a universe that started existing out of nothing or a deity that exists outside of the universe’s constraints? Neither explanation is particularly satisfying, but at least both are considerable.
Fairies, however, don’t add anything to the discussion and can therefore be dismissed out of hand.
Please point to a scientific hypothesis or theory that claims that the universe “started existing out of nothing.”
I don’t think we need to get a semantic argument over whether the singularity that led to the big bang is the same as the universe or its own distinct thing. Matter, energy, hypothetical branes, or any other “stuff” of existence: do we have a mechanism for this that isn’t just turtles all the way down?
We don’t have to get into it, but neither of the options you just gave is the same as “universe from nothing,” which is what you said initially.
I think you’re implying that the claim “the matter and energy that comprise the universe has always existed” is a bad position. If I’m correct on that, why do you feel that way? I feel that it is the claim that best comports with our current understanding of the cosmos.
Simple: how has it always existed? Why is there not more of it, or less, or none at all? Is there a viable explanation beyond “It just is?”
Also, your god vs. universe that started existing out of nothing (which isn’t a thing) argument is a false dichotomy.
Also,
Fairies, however, don’t add anything to the discussion and can therefore be dismissed out of hand.
For a given proposition, I don’t think it makes any sense to use “does it add anything to the discussion” as a criterion for dismissing it. The OP is asking about other claims of supernatural entities, which are simliar to gods at least in terms of their supernatural qualities. You don’t just get to dismiss them. So, rephrasing the OP’s question: given that you have the same amount of direct evidence for the existence of deities and unicorns, why do you believe in one but not the other?
I’d be certainly willing to consider any other models you may have.
And yes, I do get to dismiss them, because this entire thread is a question of whether and what people believe, and OP asked me whether I believe in them, so I answered. I could believe in literally anything and it would fit the topic of this thread.
But to get more specific, I am a fallibilist: I believe that everything is ultimately unprovable, not just gods. The scientific method and deities are simply two models I find compelling enough to be worthy of my time and attention.
I already answered your specific question: the philosophical arguments that make consideration of deities compelling do not hold for fairies. As one of many examples, no one has ever advanced any sort of ontological argument that would hold for fairies. Without those, the claims are not at all similar, and I have found no compelling reason to contemplate the existence for unicorns or fairies.
No one has advanced any sort of ontological argument that would hold for a deity, either.
Regardless, thank you for being honest and admitting that you believe what you believe because of feelings and nothing more. I find it hard to have discussions with people who don’t care about the actual truth of what they believe, so I’m gonna disengage here. Have a good one.
Incorrect. There have been many ontological arguments: Wikipedia lists over a dozen formulations.
You not being convinced by any does not change the fact that they have been seriously proposed and discussed for the last 1000 years or so. And again, ontological arguments are just one of many different types.
I see you feel the need to project some notion of “feelings” onto me, which is not at all what fallibilism is. So not only did you attempt to start an argument on an explanatory thread, but now you’ve demonstrated you’ve misunderstood the replies, declared yourself winner of your own game, and are jotting off. So… congrats?
I was trying to disengage peacefully, and I honestly didn’t intend to insult you or declare myself “winner” of anything. But now you’re being dishonest, so you’re blocked. Again, have a good one.
Atheist, if you consider that a religion. I view it more as a lack of religion or belief, but that’s just pedantry. I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness, but eventually became disillusioned with their teachings as I grew older and realized that they were out of touch with the Bible and (more importantly) reality. After a period of self-reflection, I examined what I believe and came to the conclusion that I didn’t really believe in much of anything anymore.
I don’t believe in the Bible. It’s a great work of literature, in an academic sense, but it’s not something to model your life on. You can tie yourselves up in knots trying to come up with a coherent interpretation or you can take everything so figuratively that you might as well ignore the source material all together. I didn’t see much point in either and just view it as a product of the wide range of people over the millennia that contributed to it.
I don’t believe in God either. For me, I don’t see a reason to think that there is a God. It’s essentially impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist. If you disproved one, people would just come up with either excuses or another God entirely. Some might argue that Earth’s existence implies the existence of a creator. Assuming that was true, wouldn’t the existence of this creator imply the existence of a second creator for the first? Why should we accept that God had no creator but that the universe had to have a creator?
There are other arguments, sure, but my lived experience has shown me no reason to think that there’s a God or specific meaning, plan, scheme, or rhyme and reason to life on Earth. That doesn’t mean we can’t find meaning in our own lives, but it does mean we have to work to make it.
Nobody is coming to save us. Nobody is going to hand us an answer or salvation. We have to save ourselves.
Some might argue that Earth’s existence implies the existence of a creator. Assuming that was true, wouldn’t the existence of this creator imply the existence of a second creator for the first?
It is not merely the existence of the earth that implies it, but the fact that it has a beginning. There’s other evidence in physics and thermodynamics that the universe’s beginning could be explained with an external trigger. The fact that the universe does not stretch endlessly into the past, and there’s a beginning of “time” does allude to the possibility of a creator.
This logic may not apply to the creator themselves, as there’s no evidence that they have a beginning too, and they don’t need one to be a creator. In fact, it makes more sense that they don’t.
But this is all very hand wavy in the end. I don’t mean to say it is certain. But I do think there’s a good argument for it.
Why do you think the universe needs a beginning, but there are special rules for your god because of?.. magic?
One of the primary assertions of the Big Bang Theory is that the universe has a beginning, and it is thus far the most widely accepted explanation of the origin of the universe.
Also please tone down the passive aggression. No one said anything about magic, and this isn’t Reddit :)
Is it true that the Big Bang asserts that the universe had a beginning? True, we don’t know much about the pre-Big Bang universe, but we don’t have a reason to think that it didn’t exist.
One of the primary assertions of the Big Bang Theory is that the universe has a beginning, and it is thus far the most widely accepted explanation of the origin of the universe.
This may seem like splitting hairs, but please bear with me: this statement is quite incorrect except in the most colloquial sense of the term “beginning.” The big bang describes the processes that led to what we understand as the current presentation of the universe. It does not offer any explanation about the actual origins of the matter and energy that make up the universe; in fact, it requires that they were already present in an extremely hot and dense state for the initial expansion to occur. This is a common misconception among theists and non-scientists and it’s a bit nuanced, but it’s really important. To state in a different way that might more directly counter your statement: my understanding is that the energy and matter that we observe as making up the universe has always existed, and there is no scientific theory that I’m aware of that claims it hasn’t.
Also please tone down the passive aggression. No one said anything about magic, and this isn’t Reddit :)
Speculating about the supposed properties of a creator of the universe that has no evidence of existing is pretty useless. You might as well be talking about magic.
But that’s a theory isn’t it? I haven’t seen any scientific theories to gods how do we know anything about a god, much less what the nature of their being? It’s just not based on anything, (therefore my allusions to magic)
I don’t enjoy your tone policing… There are ways to do that without sounding pretentious and holier than though, please keep that in mind for the next time.
Yes it is a scientific theory (not a hypothesis), which means it is the widely accepted explanation by scientists.
You’re right that the theory is not about God, but explains the origins of the universe. What I said about God is what I think is a logical conclusion. If something has a beginning, then it must have been kickstarted somehow. What kickstarted it is by definition its creator. And this applies to our universe, in my opinion.
This does not reveal the nature of the creator or anything about them. It is merely a statement that they must exist. An effect must have a cause.
I apologize for sounding pretentious earlier, that was not my intention, but I can see how it came off as such. And apologize for misunderstanding your intentions as well.
Also I notice you have some downvotes. Just want to clarify that it is not me.
You’re right that the theory is not about God, but explains the origins of the universe.
How so? I don’t see what you mean here, it doesn’t explain anything, it just builds a level of assumptions on top of something, basically explaining something with an untested hypothesis.
what I said about God is what I think is a logical conclusion.
If you Agree to the premises I guess, but I don’t, so it explains nothing.
If something has a beginning, then it must have been kickstarted somehow.
Then who kickstarted god? Or does he/she/it for some reason get special treatment here? (This is special pleading)
What kickstarted it is by definition its creator.
If I kick a stone down a hill I did not create the stone even though I set it in motion.
And this applies to our universe, in my opinion.
Hmm, I don’t see how you evade an infinite regression here, unless you break your own rules and give one link in the chain an “eternal always existing” modifier. We don’t know that anything eternal exist, or even that our universe isn’t eternal (extisting eternally as a singularity before spreading or a part of a bigger multiverse that we cannot perceive)
It is merely a statement that they must exist.
It is just assuming that something must exist, since you’re building your logic on very shaky premises that we cannot prove.
An effect must have a cause.
Must it? Or have we just never seen the contrary (black swan fallacy) Who caused god? like I said before you can’t get away from that without special pleading.
I apologize for sounding pretentious earlier, that was not my intention, but I can see how it came off as such. And apologize for misunderstanding your intentions as well.
Water under the bridge :) No worries :)
Also I notice you have some downvotes. Just want to clarify that it is not me.
No worries, I don’t care about the votes, interactions are worth way more than someone clicking an arrow :)
I have no religion. I have no real spiritual belief. The little bit of “supernatural” I ““believe in”” is conjecture beyond the bounds of the universe, and are more like “ya I think this is my best answer for things” or “what if?” rather than an actual belief.
Within the bounds of the universe, I generally subscribe to scientific consensus, I’m not nearly smart enough to really argue against people who’ve spent their careers building upon the theories of those before them.
I am an atheist.
Being raised under Christianity and having actually read the Bible like a book (as in just front to back like a novel; but boring) is what led me to it.
deleted by creator
Transhumanist, non-practicing Antitheist
Raised Roman Catholic, broke with that after a classmate died out of the blue of an aneurysm (how could God let shit like that happen?), after looking through Buddhism and some Occultist stuff, realized that the main function of “God” is to be used as a prop to scam people. I’ve considered the Satanist Left Hand path, but I don’t care about rituals. I’d rather follow the scientific method as applied to everything, and use it to extend and expand human nature. While theists still kind of nauseate me with a dash of pity, like seeing a dead kitten in the gutter, I’m up for positive interactions with anyone capable of maintaining one.
Atheist. Raised catholic. Too old, I realized that the god of the bible isn’t a moral person. 1 Samuel 15:3 etc. Arguing with young-earth creationists gave me the final push, I understood science well enough to understand the implications of radiometric dating, plate tectonics, geology etc.
Devout SubGenius. Caught a devival as a young lad, was too busy focusing on a girl I was there with to really listen, but kept thinking about it as years went by. Couldn’t remember squat, not even “Bob’s” name, saw his face from time to time in passing but could never catch up to ask “what the hell is that?” Then one day I found Hour of Slack episode one on youtube, “this is the thing!” I thought, as I found the book used, bought it, found the website, and immediatly got ordained while listening to episode two.
The rest is history. PRA’BOB!
The Rupture has come and gone, yet we are all still here. Where’s your Bob now?
There are many theories, pink one. One such theory is that the rupture did happen, the apocalypse is just slower than we imagined. Another is that “Bob” wrote the year upside down on the napkin, it is actually in 8661. Another is that it simply isn’t 1998 yet, and The Conspiracy has been fucking with the calendar for a long time. There is some evidence to substantiate all of these, so they all may as well be true.
I’m a fan of the Slow Apocalypse theory. It would explain so much…
It really does!
