that's not reincarnation. that's recycling.

g

But to believe in something that you cannot describe is just plain idiocy.

@GlyndonD not everyone is articulate. not being able to describe something could redound to the thing's nonexistence, or it could redound to the person's inability to describe things. i can't explain why mercury is the way mercury is, and i just listened to an hour-long show about mercury. i am not generally inarticulate, but i just can't absorb all that at once. i got the general idea, i understood what i heard as i heard it, but if you ask me to tell you all about mercury, i can just say it's dark, it probably has only one tectonic plate and not several like earth does, and all the stuff we already all know about it, like it's small and the first planet from the sun. well, that's not all there is to know and that's not a very impressive description, though it's twice as good as i could have managed before i heard the show. the problem with believing in various weird ideas about what might happen after we die isn't our inability to describe them. it's that they tend to be completely fanciful and based on our universal wish not to have our lives just stop, even though that is the only thing we know actually happens. lots of people can describe heaven beautifully, and that place doesn't even exist!

g

@genessa, you have a pretty good idea about Mercury, and can describe some things about it. But a person who believes in disembodied spirits can't describe anything about them, except that they exist. There is no basis for belief, except as you say, wishful thinking.

@GlyndonD, i don't think it's true that people who believe in disembodied spirits can't describe anything about them. some can and some can't. and think of unicorns: we can all describe them, and some can draw or paint them, and they STILL don't exist. meanwhile, i can't describe a photon, and photons exist! describe love? no two people can describe it alike, and many can't describe it at all! i know it when i feel it, though, and sometimes when i see it in others. i don't think description is the problem, or the issue, at all.

g

@genessa, nobody can describe the essence of a disembodied spirit -- what it's made of. I'm therefore rejecting the fantasy as being a credible thing of the universe. To give credibility to one's fantasy as being real is not something I'll put any effort toward. Why should I, if the creator of the fantasy can't seem to do it.

Interesting how much effort you'll put forth. Have you given any thought as to why you do this?

@GlyndonD i do not understand your question. you seem to be asking why i put forth effort to prove there are disembodied spirits, when i do no such thing. i think i have made it clear that there is no such thing as a disembodied spirit. i think i have made it clear that my reason for not believing in disembodied spirits has nothing to do with whether or not anyone can describe them (which, even though they do NOT exist, plenty of people -- and their descriptions don't necessarily agree, mostly because they're describing something that doesn't exist, but they can still describe them!) people describe their hallucinations and THOSE aren't real either. so... which part of my continuing explanation has led you to believe that i believe in disembodied spirits? how many times do i have to say i do NOT for you to GET it? can you please reread everything i have written? because you clearly have not understood one word, if you think that i believe in disembodied spirits. gah. we're arguing about nothing.

g

@genessa, it is your defense of fantasy and belief over that of reason and real experience that I'm objecting to. The fact that I should have some kind of respect for a person's belief in some arbitrary, undefined, unsubstantiated, inconsistent "object" is most distressing. This is an attack on reason and knowledge. Reread your writings to realize that this is what you're promoting.

@GlyndonD in what way did i defend any of that? i have reread my writings. i am promoting no such thing.

g

@genessa, seems pretty obvious to me. You are saying the image of something is an explanation of it. I think that's not significant enough of an explanation.

@GlyndonD i said no such thing! in fact i said the OPPOSITE.

g

@GlyndonD let me see if i can put this VERY simply.

stuff you can't see may or may not be real. not being able to see it doesn't prove it one way or the other.

stuff you can't describe may or may not be real. one person's being unable to describe something doesn't make it unreal. one person's ability to describe it also doesn't make it real. it has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability or inability of people to describe. there are other criteria. describability is not one of them. i can describe a unicorn. that doesn't make it real. there are no unicorns even though i can describe them. there are bacteria, even though i can neither see nor describe them.

i have said multiple times i don't believe in unicorns or ghosts or gods or souls or spirits or any other crap like that. how many times do i have to say it?

why do you accuse me of defending superstitions and the like when i have REPEATEDLY said that they are nonsense? do you read only every other word of mine?

g

@genessa, you seem to dismiss my opinion that one should not give any credibility to the existence of something that a person has not been able to even minimally describe. Such fantasy objects should not be given equal status as things that have been described and defined through evidence and reason.

@GlyndonD you are right. i am dismissing that idea. if they are fantasy objects there are other bases on which to deny credibility. if they are not fantasy objects, someone's ability to describe them is irrelevant. i am also dismissing your assertion that i am defending fantasies. i'm not. i am also dismissing your assertion that description has a damned thing to do with any of it. there are other criteria. we're going around in circles. you're not understanding anything i say and all you're doing is making false accusations. under the circumstances, i am not sure why i should continue to try to explain myself to you. i am sure most people reading this understand what i am saying. i am sorry that you do not.

g

@genessa, you shouldn't try to continue explaining yourself, because I fully understand what you're trying to say. I simply don't agree with you, and there's nothing I can say that will convince you that I'm justified in my disagreement.

So, I'll end with saying, "I believe you're wrong. I can't describe why you're wrong, but please accept my statement as being just as valid as a reasoned, valid argument against want you're saying."

And unicorns are real.

@GlyndonD well i don't accept it, on the basis that you clearly do NOT understand what i am saying. i say this based on your assertions that i have said certain things that not only have i not said but the opposite of what i've said. so you think i need not explain myself anymore. good for you. i think i shouldn't bother, but for different reasons.

g

@tshaaj you can't see who? rofl!

g

@tshaaj Maybe it sucks because someone put in your mind that there is a life after death?

@tshaaj Yes, I can. I have yet to see ANY evidence to the contrary. Unless and until I do, I have absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.

@tshaaj No, thank you. The truth is, I honestly do not care. If anything does happen, I'll find out when/if it happens to me. I'm not interested in pondering such things, they detract from the "now" for me.

@evestrat Exactly! I found his mention of you to be extremely suspect, and nothing more than "name-dropping" in an attempt to gain credibility. If there were actual "proof" of ANY of this bullshit afterlife stuff, it would be on numerous other platforms, other than just the internet. It would also be far more than simply anecdotal.

@evestrat People like that make me laugh. What do they think? That we don't talk to one another?
He's a Level 3, who self-identifies as a "believer". Maybe there is some truth to the 'theory' that atheists are smarter than believers. LOLOLOL

I'm sorry. Losing a loved companion is so difficult. I lost my Caesar to cancer last year, and life is just not the same without him.

@tshaaj Yes

@tshaaj What facts? Please cite your evidence

@tshaaj, you're in a serious state of denial. Grow up. Accept the truth. You'll feel better once you know you won't have to be yourself for eternity. Your suffering will be over.

@tshaaj I can write anything on a book, People can tell any history they want.
People can lie, people can interpret stuff in the wrong way.
If there is no controlled experiment, reproducible and peer reviewed is not science and cannot be claimed as scientific facts.
AND if it cannot be claimed as scientific facts is a matter of belief, and as agnostic I refuse to belief in something just for the sake of belief.

@tshaaj

1. yes they can, it sels adds, the scientific answer don't
2. anyone can make a website, sensacionalism mais more money that science
3. doesn't matter how big they are in science, the only works that matter from scientific POV are per reviewed articles, so if they are writing books, giving interviews, making events, websites, doesn't matter, doesn't matter their past or future works, no text out of per reviewed articles matter.
   All books, texts, interviews, events etc, are only valid in science if based on per reviewed articles.
   Deal with it, anything else than this can
4. be lying
   2)non reproducible so not sure about what happened or how was interpreted
5. can contain methodological failure
6. can contain biasses, or effects analogous to placebus.
   And if they can prove that any supernatural stuff exists, just submit the works to the many challenges like Randy's that pays 1 million for this evidence.