Reincarnation

[Sriram]

You don't need to explain anything. I believe in reincarnation and accept the possibility of the boy having been reborn. Now...why are you getting all hot and bothered because of that?

[Stranger]

You don't need to explain anything. I believe in reincarnation and accept the possibility of the boy having been reborn.

As I said on the other thread (and you ignored, as you do anything you find challenging):-

No you don't have to explain anything, but you keep on presenting these 'ideas' as if they were thought out, intellectually and even scientifically justifiable. Your whole blog is set up like that too, not only your posts here. It's not a good look when it all collapses into blind faith and ignoring the evidence as soon as you get challenged.

You're basically trying to spread misinformation.

[Gordon]

You don't need to explain anything. I believe in reincarnation and accept the possibility of the boy having been reborn. Now...why are you getting all hot and bothered because of that?

In that case, Sriram, you believe in, and are peddling, woo: you've often said that what you believe is different from religions, and I think you are dead wrong - reincarnation is just a preposterous as dead men not staying dead.

Your beliefs are not justified by either method or evidence and can, therefore, be dismissed just as easily as, say, the beliefs of Christians in miracles - it's all magical and wishful thinking, often dressed up in the form of a Courtier's Reply.   

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In that case, Sriram, you believe in, and are peddling, woo: you've often said that what you believe is different from religions, and I think you are dead wrong - reincarnation is just a preposterous as dead men not staying dead.

Your beliefs are not justified by either method or evidence and can, therefore, be dismissed just as easily as, say, the beliefs of Christians in miracles - it's all magical and wishful thinking, often dressed up in the form of a Courtier's Reply.

Courtiers reply, a name which stems from the Hans Christian Anderson fable about a naked King.

Who or what is naked here. What clothes are they lacking?

[Sriram]

In that case, Sriram, you believe in, and are peddling, woo: you've often said that what you believe is different from religions, and I think you are dead wrong - reincarnation is just a preposterous as dead men not staying dead.

Your beliefs are not justified by either method or evidence and can, therefore, be dismissed just as easily as, say, the beliefs of Christians in miracles - it's all magical and wishful thinking, often dressed up in the form of a Courtier's Reply.

In your opinion it is 'woo' (whatever that means). Not according to me.  I consider it a valid hypothesis for which there is ample evidence in terms of documented cases (Jim Tucker).

And reincarnation is a philosophical  concept independent of religions....though religions may also teach reincarnation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

In your opinion it is 'woo' (whatever that means). Not according to me.  I consider it a valid hypothesis for which there is ample evidence in terms of documented cases (Jim Tucker).

Only if your stretch the phrase “valid hypothesis” to include any notion that happens to pop into your head no matter how incoherent, non-cogent, and reason- and evidence-free.

And reincarnation is a philosophical  concept independent of religions....though religions may also teach reincarnation.

What “philosophy” do you think supports such an outlandish claim? Or are you now also stretching that term to includes include any notion that happens to pop into your head no matter how incoherent, non-cogent, and reason- and evidence-free?

[Sriram]

I know you have problems with Eastern philosophies. At least check out Plato and Pythagoras. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I know you have problems with Eastern philosophies.

No, you don't know that at all. What I do have a "problem" with though is people dishonestly spreading reason- and evidence-denying woo and pretending that it's not reason- and evidence-denying woo by ignoring the arguments that explain why it's reason- and evidence-denying woo. 

At least check out Plato and Pythagoras.

As you apper not to have read anything much I suspect I've "checked out" both more rigorously than you have.