NDT and reincarnation (cremation, Buddhism, church, atheist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many, me specifically, have stated the exact same thing as quote 3 (and many of the themes of the other quotes) as links between a spiritual and scientific nature. Many fundamentalists, on both sides, but more of the atheism-science persuasion, have mocked and ridiculed this assertion linking it to a belief in omnidude or whatever the current pejorative du jour may be. I am curious if NDT will also be flamed for proferring very similar ideas:
Note, When posted here, its often misassociated with the Abrahamic faiths, which I am not, or incorrectly identified with samsara-moksha from Hinduisms growth to Buddhism. Both of which are interesting but also not ascribed to.
There is rarely a reason to respond. For some have ceased fighting everyone and everything, including ourselves. We must or it kills us (that is also not from me but another movement that needs not mentioned).
Many, me specifically, have stated the exact same thing as quote 3 (and many of the themes of the other quotes) as links between a spiritual and scientific nature. Many fundamentalists, on both sides, but more of the atheism-science persuasion, have mocked and ridiculed this assertion linking it to a belief in omnidude or whatever the current pejorative du jour may be. I am curious if NDT will also be flamed for proferring very similar ideas:
Note, When posted here, its often misassociated with the Abrahamic faiths, which I am not, or incorrectly identified with samsara-moksha from Hinduisms growth to Buddhism. Both of which are interesting but also not ascribed to.
There is rarely a reason to respond. For some have ceased fighting everyone and everything, including ourselves. We must or it kills us (that is also not from me but another movement that needs not mentioned).
I'm happy with all of that. I might argue with the burial quote that even in cremation, the elemets are there, but I think he's right. The process of assimilation is done by nature, not by fire.
And the most amazing fact is that the building blocks of life - biochemicals, as well as heavy elements, came from exploding stars. All life is made of star -stuff.
But where is the link with "spiritual"? I can't see one. I get 'Amazing' but amazing is just amazing. It isn't "spiritual" - in the sense I use it - unless one is looking for an excuse to turn amazement into reverence.
I'd mention quote 5. Because that's the problem. People have been fed this Something More idea. They sidestep the implications of Faith by saying they are not religious. That is an evasion. the thing about Spiritual is that it is vague. What the heck is "Spiritual?" It is anything from ethics and morality to an afterlife and some kind of Cosmic mind.
Much of this is comprehensible in logical and material terms. Even science is looking into those areas where at one time it was considered only the Spiritual could go. And Science has found all the answers so far. "Spiritual" just poses the questions.
Which is fine. Which is welcome. It is just when FAITH comes into it - and it is, I assert, a faith very much conditioned by religion, even if they shrug off Organized religion and think they are being very rational and objective. Spiritual poses the questions; Faith pretends that it has the answers.
They ain't being rational or objective. They are looking for excuses to push a Sorta -god faith, and whether that is an innate instinct or spoonfed residual religious indoctrination, either way, there is no good evidence for it.
That wrongheaded and unintentionally hypocritical view is bad enough (though as it isn't organized religion, it is a problem for them, not me), but it gets worse when they then bash science and skeptical materialism (including atheists, of course) for not signing up to their Faith.
They don't put it that way, of course No, they STRAWMAN it by saying we deny this or reject that or refuse to look at the other. Science and atheism does no such thing. We look at the claims and if we can find nothing but Faith there - we don't buy it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-17-2017 at 06:27 AM..
Ok, wherever it came into it. An NDE heaven or rebirth or any combination of the two. Bottom line is - the evidence isn't good enough to say it is credible, never mind leaping from such claims to a god -claim.
And there seems to be an interesting game-plan going on.
I have a theory... well it's just seeing how it goes...but it might be that Organized religion is losing favour. Instead there is a belief in God, even a god sorta linked with Christianity, but not so much as would require them to put up a defence of either Bible or Christian dogma. Perhaps that much progress has been made - they know they are doomed to a pummelling if they try to defend Bible, Church or Dogma.
Or maybe they are honestly persuaded and can no longer believe it..yeah, let's say it is honest doubt.
But they still Believe in God, sorta, once Religion has gone.
And then atheism asks why, and what do they have? Not a lot, really, which is why they have to pound on the table quite a lot, and that 'table' is Gaps for God - or the unexplained.
The unexplained origins of the universe,
The unexplained origins of life,
The unexplained origins of Consciousness,
the unexplained NDE's,
The Unexplained.
We of course say that is none of it good reason to believe in a god, then we get efforts to prove a firstcause god with what they call logical arguments, efforts to prove abiogeneis 'impossible' without a god and denial pretty much of the supportive evidence for consciousness being another natural product.
And NDE's are of course unexplained as yet. We had a thread recently where an effort was made to argue one only possible conclusion on us - it was real as it appeared. Well, this is what they thought and argued about alien abduction stories, too; and now they merely look like imagination.
So they cannot even pound on the Unexplainedes table - so they pound on the opponents.
Now, it was pretty much to be expected that, in explaining this, accusations of denial and closed -mindedness were flung at us.
This is what seems to be the ploy with irreligious god -believers. Ignoring that not all the religious are fundies, they say there are two extremes - extreme belief in God and extreme rejection of God. They sometimes find it handy to say both side are a religion and claim some logical higher ground because they don't sign up to any organized religion. And then of course they have to invent an atheist religion with special -pleading fallacies like atheist books, spokespersons and conventions as symptoms of a church.
So I just don't know whether the constant slinging of the "Fundy..fundy.." mudpies at atheism in hope it will stick is a ploy to discredit the atheist that stubbornly will not believe as a fact god -claims without any good substantiation, or they just delight in insulting us. Either way, explanation that 'Fundamentalism' is as absurd as applied to atheism as shouting "Warmongers!" at a football team, is ignored. Just as a good Fundamentalist will ignore anything that he doesn't want to hear.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-17-2017 at 10:41 AM..
NDE? Not sure where that's coming from? NDT is Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
The assumptions it seems are being made, and that could me assuming on the assumptions, are what I find comical.
Conservation of matter and conservation of energy are pretty accepted principles, and both are pretty consistent with a version of reincarnation.
Again there are many who no longer find a need to even argue positions as it's really just an expression of ego (and someone will argue that as well which is comical as well).
I just liked the quotes... especially since many I personally came to a long time ago. I hope others who read his quotes enjoy the link.
NDE? Not sure where that's coming from? NDT is Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
Yes, that's what I thought at first. No the NDE this came out of evidence to go beyond amazement of nature to getting theistic about it.
Quote:
The assumptions it seems are being made, and that could me assuming on the assumptions, are what I find comical.
Conservation of matter and conservation of energy are pretty accepted principles, and both are pretty consistent with a version of reincarnation.
Again there are many who no longer find a need to even argue positions as it's really just an expression of ego (and someone will argue that as well which is comical as well).
I just liked the quotes... especially since many I personally came to a long time ago. I hope others who read his quotes enjoy the link.
There seems to me to be a fundamental error in thinking in this idea of continuance after death (heaven or rebirth). The particles are still around, sure. But they are not to be taken as being together. They are dissipated. They are going to make up a lot of different things and effects. There is no good reason to see a perpetuation of an invisible copy of the dead human going on, any more than a burned -down candle leaves an invisible candle to go on invisibly burning.
This is surely more to do with the human instinct to fear and reject death than with any evidential or logical reason.
Yes Stymie13, I enjoyed the link thanks.
Especially "This is not the way to have a conversation."
I'm neither religious nor atheist & people often try to assign me a pigeon hole so that they can pretend to know my position.
"There is rarely a reason to respond." The older I get, the more I feel that it doesn't matter what one believes, as long as it harms none. We are eternal beings/entities/energies.
Yep.Two points: it can be terribly tempting to argue in a totally different tone of voice, according to which side the opponent is supposed to be on.
It's understandable; the last thing I want to do is get into a Row with other atheists. The religious apologists can get miffy, if they want.
The other is Harm. This is why atheists are often actively anti - religion. Because we think it does harm. Those who believe in ghosts, Ufo's and Astrology...well, they do minor damage - just as betting shops and licenced victuallers can do damage - but only to those who allow them to.
Religion, because of its' grip on society, is in a position to do serious harm. That's why constant effort is required, just tos tay where we are, let alone roll it back still further.
Many, me specifically, have stated the exact same thing as quote 3 (and many of the themes of the other quotes) as links between a spiritual and scientific nature.
I am not sure exactly how you are interpreting what Neil Degrasse Tyson is saying when he said...
“I would request that my body in death be buried not cremated, so that the energy content contained within it gets returned to the earth, so that flora and fauna can dine upon it, just as I have dined upon flora and fauna during my lifetime”
He goes on to explain what he means and I am wondering if it's what you think he is saying.
You can watch him explain the entire quote to Larry King. He is not making any spiritual link...he is simply describing where he wants the energy content, contained within the molecules in his body, to be dispersed upon dearth. He does not want to be cremated because the energy content of his body i.e. the molecules within his deceased body; if cremated that energy is releases as heat that dissipates off into space as radiation, which is of no use to anybody. He wants to be buried so that the energy contained within his molecules upon death can be utilized by the worms and microbes that dine upon his molecules....v.s. dissipating away into space as heat. As he puts it, "and thus is the cycle of life".
NDE? Not sure where that's coming from? NDT is Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
The assumptions it seems are being made, and that could me assuming on the assumptions, are what I find comical.
Conservation of matter and conservation of energy are pretty accepted principles, and both are pretty consistent with a version of reincarnation.
Again there are many who no longer find a need to even argue positions as it's really just an expression of ego (and someone will argue that as well which is comical as well).
I just liked the quotes... especially since many I personally came to a long time ago. I hope others who read his quotes enjoy the link.
same here, I came to follow these in like the third grade, then sagan sealed the deal form. The "bury or burning is irrelevant to anything.
we only have the standard model.
The closest we get to reincarnation is body's that grow up in similar states. Our doubles are everywhere. The dabli lamas people walk about until they find the smartest baby they can that react similarly to some external stimuli.
Guess what? they all turn out to be very smart and very similar ... no magic.
we are a mixture of "memes" and body types. There is a ton over lap.
toss in genetics ... poof ... reincarnation.
reincarnation is 1/2 true and 1/2 misunderstood.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, they STRAWMAN it by saying we deny this or reject that or refuse to look at the other. Science and atheism does no such thing. We look at the claims and if we can find nothing but Faith there - we don't buy it.
well it's just seeing how it goes...but it might be that Organized religion is losing favour. Instead there is a belief in God, even a god sorta linked with Christianity, but not so much as would require them to put up a defence of either Bible or Christian dogma. Perhaps that much progress has been made - they know they are doomed to a pummelling if they try to defend Bible, Church or Dogma.
say that is none of it good reason to believe in a god, then we get efforts to prove a firstcause god with what they call logical arguments, efforts to prove abiogeneis 'impossible' without a god and denial pretty much of the supportive evidence for consciousness being another natural product.
