Turq:> I think the most you can say is that "There is no > evidence that past lives exist, and no evidence that > they do not. It's as much a mystery to science as > it is to each and every one of us. None of us know > for sure what happens subjectively when you die, > and neither does science." > > Isn't that a more fair and realistic statement than > "There is too much evidence that past lives don't > exist?"
This thread continues to kick ass! This is a very interesting point. I don't think that pointing out that a person's assertion lacks good evidence is a belief on the same order as the person's belief being asserted. The burden of proof is on the person asserting the belief. So Stu's confidence that there is a lack of good evidence may be justified IMO and does not mean that he is supporting a dogmatic belief. I do prefer your formulation of there being a lack of evidence to claiming that there is plenty evidence of lack in this case however. I also prefer this way of expressing my own lack of believe in any of the God ideas as being more than ideas of man. Despite the fact that nobody does really know know what happens after death, we can be confident that there is a lack of good evidence for the specific belief in reincarnation. But as humans we do end up betting on the probability of our beliefs so none of us are exactly impassive observers of our POV, we are advocates usually. Every belief is not equally valid just because we can't prove it wrong without taking a dirt bath. We might find alternate explanations for beliefs that are more satisfying. Once we learn how generative our minds can be in unconsciously creating detailed experiences, we should lose absolute conviction in them being real at face value. You expressed this appropriate lack of certainty when you brought in the idea that there was some outside corroboration of your inner experiences in predicting what was in a room you had not been in. Since I was not there, I don't know how much confidence I can put in that as a test. But it illustrates that these experiences can be tested to some degree. Before we could study chemical imbalances in the brain, mankind attributed mental illness to supernatural forces. Now that we can correct some of these imbalances does it prove that there are still no demons at work? Not really. But the usefulness of that explanation drops off. And despite the fact that the Judy-Stu aspect of this discussion has broken down a bit, everyone is adding really interesting points in this thread. This goes to the heart of what we know and how we can be confident about it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > On the other hand, Stu, you seem to be selling your > > belief that it doesn't exist pretty hard. Why? What > > does it matter to you what other people believe about > > what happens when they die? > > > > You seem to be so *certain* that you know. In fact, > > the degree of certainty that you are bringing to > > your posts on this subject is higher IMO than some > > of the people replying who believe in reincarnation. > > I don't think I've heard any of them say that they > > know "for sure" that reincarnation is a fact. But > > you seem to be saying that "blinking out" IS a fact. > > > > What's up with that? The way I presented my beliefs > > on this subject was pretty clear IMO. I went out of > > my way to say that NO ONE ON THIS PLANET > > knows for sure what happens when one dies. That > > statement included me, and it included you. I don't > > see how believing that one knows "for sure" that > > there is no afterlife is any different than believing > > that one knows "for sure" that there is. > > > > See what I'm getting at? > > > > "Reincarnation is a fact and that's that." > > > > "There is no reincarnation and that's that." > > > > Both statements sound pretty damned fundamentalist > > to me. I used neither of them, but as I read what > > you're writing you seem to be preaching the latter. > > Here's why I'm saying this, Stu, two sentences > from one of your earlier replies on this thread. > > > Past lives are a fantasy based on "hard wired" predilections > > of the mind. > > > > There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist. > > The first sentence sounds like a theory to me, but > it is presented as if it were a fact. What's up with > that? > > And the second sentence is even more off the wall. > I know of no such "evidence that past lives don't > exist." In an earlier reply I asked you to point us > to where such evidence is if you can. > > I think the most you can say is that "There is no > evidence that past lives exist, and no evidence that > they do not. It's as much a mystery to science as > it is to each and every one of us. None of us know > for sure what happens subjectively when you die, > and neither does science." > > Isn't that a more fair and realistic statement than > "There is too much evidence that past lives don't > exist?" >
