Does Reincarnation Exist? :)

[Sean K]

Some of the Army experiences are in there, but it's fiction really. A travel book with the main character travelling around the world seeing these amazing things and meeting all these incredible people with specific insights into how the world works. The characters are based on historical figures like JC, Muhummad, The Buddha, Dr Who, Rafa, Wayne, etc. Topics like those discussed in this forum will all be attacked. Will have to add in a Snake and a Nelly now.....

Thorton uses his 100K to buy things that wil move on the day without any regard to the actual volume of trade. He did try to adjust to make it fair, but I'm not sure how much he adjusted. Bloody amazing effort though!

 

[nelly]

It sounds interesting.......have you read a lot about any one subject, or is it more from a personal perspective?
Will we get a cut...? :topic :

 

[Sean K]

It solves all the worlds problems of course!

Including if reincarnation actually exists. (back on topic)

It's pretty average really. Almost unreadable.

 

[nelly]

It solves all the worlds problems of course!

Including if reincarnation actually exists. (back on topic)

It's pretty average really. Almost unreadable.

I find it surprising that you would think your writings to be un-readable.I also find it surprising that some one as intelligent and articulate as yourself would have such a 'clinical' opinion on the subject of soul-no soul/ faith-beliefs.
I think the subject quite confronting and that listening to others is stimulating, especially when their opinions/beliefs differ so greatly from my own.[i'm sure you are the same]
So thanks for the in-put..
If your book gets published, and I have no doubt you have the courage to do that, I hope it all goes well. I personally would like to do a childrens book someday.

 

[Rafa]

Some of the Army experiences are in there, but it's fiction really. A travel book with the main character travelling around the world seeing these amazing things and meeting all these incredible people with specific insights into how the world works. The characters are based on historical figures like JC, Muhummad, The Buddha, Dr Who, Rafa, Wayne, etc. Topics like those discussed in this forum will all be attacked. Will have to add in a Snake and a Nelly now.....

I knew there is more to you that your ravings on the virtues of logic
I am not really that anti-logic, i am an engineer by profession and love science and maths...!

anyway, its great to hear you are writing a book... AWESOME, i look forward to reading it when it comes out.... or for that matter, even before its published...

 

[wayneL]

...WayneL point of view (even tho he doesn't believe in a God)

Whoa there Saphire! I never said that. I just don't buy religions image of God.

Cheers

 

[wayneL]

PROSELYTIZATION

But a classic nonetheless.

jog on
d998

Thank you, I am a stickler for spelling, but often fall well short of my own standards.

Peace

 

[Rafa]

Whoa there Saphire! I never said that. I just don't buy religions image of God.

Cheers

Whoops.... Sorry for the misinterpretation... Regardless, still agree with your point of view....

 

[nelly]

Whoa there Saphire! I never said that. I just don't buy religions image of God.

Cheers

Mornin' Wayne..
.....'religions.'.... Anyone in particular or all of them? I used to think [when it didn't hurt so much] that MY God was one that existed by my set of rules.......I consider myself not so naive now......[someone is going to comment on the 'naive']...
I'd be interested to hear your opinion
Cheers...

 

[ghotib]

The numbers are 1 in 10 to the power of 100. That's a big number!

A very famous physicist called Paul Davies from Adelaide (of all places) won the equivalent of the Nobel Prise for religion a number of years ago for proving it statistically impossible for the earth to exist without a designer. This was probably the basis of ID, which is actually outlawed from most school curriculums.

With respect kennas, I think this misrepresents Paul Davies' work and I'm sure that his work is not the basis of "ID". This link is to Davies' address on receiving the Templeton Prize, which I think is the one you're talking about (?) http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9508/davies.html
You can see from this that Davies' idea about purposive design in the universe is a long way from any kind of creationism, even though he's sometimes cited as a scientist who supports Intelligent Design. I don't know whether he's done any statistical work on the probability of earth's existence, but I'm pretty confident that if he did it was not the reason he was awarded this prize.

Here's a couple of paragraphs from that address.

Where do we human beings fit into this great cosmic scheme? Can we gaze out into the cosmos, as did our remote ancestors, and declare: "God made all this for us"? I think not. Are we then but an accident of nature, the freakish outcome of blind and purposeless forces, incidental by- product of a mindless, mechanistic universe? I reject that, too. The emergence of life and consciousness, I maintain, are written into the laws of the universe in a very basic way. True, the actual physical form and general mental make-up of Homo sapiens contain many accidental features of no particular significance. If the universe were rerun a second time, there would be no solar system, no Earth, and no people. But the emergence of life and consciousness somewhere and somewhen in the cosmos is, I believe, assured by the underlying laws of nature. The origin of life and consciousness were not interventionist miracles, but nor were they stupendously improbable accidents. They were, I believe, part of the natural outworking of the laws of nature, and as such our existence as conscious enquiring beings springs ultimately from the bedrock of physical existence-those ingenious, felicitous laws. That is the sense in which I wrote in The Mind of God: "We are truly meant to be here." I mean "we" in the sense of conscious beings, not Homo sapiens specifically. Thus although we are not at the center of the universe, human existence does have a powerful wider significance. Whatever the universe as a whole may be about, the scientific evidence suggests that we, in some limited yet ultimately still profound way, are an integral part of its purpose.

How can we test these ideas scientifically? One of the great challenges to science is to understand the nature of consciousness in general and human consciousness in particular. We still have no clue how mind and matter are related, or what process led to the emergence of mind from matter in the first place. This is an area of research that is attracting considerable attention at present, and for my part I intend to pursue my own research in this field. I expect that when we do come to understand how consciousness fits into the physical universe, my contention that mind is an emergent and in principle predictable product of the laws of the universe will be borne out.

Ghoti

 

[wayneL]

Mornin' Wayne..
.....'religions.'.... Anyone in particular or all of them? I used to think [when it didn't hurt so much] that MY God was one that existed by my set of rules.......I consider myself not so naive now......[someone is going to comment on the 'naive']...
I'd be interested to hear your opinion
Cheers...

In all religions where God is named/defined, God is personified with human charactaristics... jealosy, anger, revenge, racism, need to be worshipped, etc.

I don't buy it. I have my own ideas of course, but am humble enough to realise that it is my own construction from my imagination.

I contend that any human ideas about God can only be a construction. Hence the very foundation of religious dogma could be entirely wrong.

 

[Sean K]

Wayne, I agree with you in regard to the construction of the idea of 'God' here. I am sure no two people on the planet could describe God in the same way. This is one of the Mystics approach to God: It is a totally individual experience.

 

[nelly]

In all religions where God is named/defined, God is personified with human charactaristics... jealosy, anger, revenge, racism, need to be worshipped, etc.

I don't buy it. I have my own ideas of course, but am humble enough to realise that it is my own construction from my imagination.

I contend that any human ideas about God can only be a construction. Hence the very foundation of religious dogma could be entirely wrong.

mornin' Wayne..
Theoretically.......if you believe in God as the Creator...wouldn't it be possible that he give you like character traits. And a handbook?
...theoretically of course....
Cheers

 

[Sean K]

Ghotib,

Yes, sorry, my comments are a bit haphazzard there.

The numbers are not from Davies work, I read that somewhere else, possibly a Personal Investor magazine ......didn't mean to link them here.

I also didn't mean to say that it was Davies that started the theory of ID, that goes back pre Socrates. Aristotle, kept the ball rolling with his idea of an 'unmoved mover' who was the 'first cause' of everything. With our current understanding of the world, eveything needs an original source. Things can't possibly exist forever? So, the conclusion is that there is something we do not understand yet. All we know is that it has existed forever. Unless we start making stuff out of nothing.....

I'm not exatly sure which book contained the ideas Davies was presented his award for. What I remember is that he's a Physicist and was presented an award for his work to religion by his conclusions that it's scientifically impossible for the universe to be an accident. I haven't read the one you quoted from. I have only read his 'God and the New Physics' which I gave to a friend a while ago and can't quote from here. I need to study up a bit more on his work obviously.....

So, what was the 'first cause'? Or, did it all start from nothing? Impossible.

 

[nelly]

Wayne, I agree with you in regard to the construction of the idea of 'God' here. I am sure no two people on the planet could describe God in the same way. This is one of the Mystics approach to God: It is a totally individual experience.

Morning Kennas,
A comment on the individual experience.....the first thing a christian comes to understand is that it is basically all about the personal experience, whether that is termed mystical,fantastical..........the most pragmatic,grounded in the real world people have surprised me in regards to their faith.
Cheers

 

[Sean K]

Hey Nelly,

If it's personal experience why have organised religion??

 

[nelly]

Hey Nelly,

If it's personal experience why have organised religion??

Kennas I can't and wouldn't presume to answer for anyone else on this one, but IMO it is not about 'organised'... more like..like minded[in faith] people supporting each other, even the most devout have problems with faith, [usually to do with focus] living in the world today who wouldn't? I do not agree with a lot of things people have done and will continue to do in the name of their faith, but that is driven by man not from anything in the Bible..[I only have a rudimentary knowledge of the Bible atm regards to quotes]
I used to have the mindset that ALL the different faiths were a load of ####
because of what I perceived them to be all about, you know...you just have to look at history. And they could never answer a straight question..fantastical..yes.
There is nothing in the Bible that says any of it was 'the way'...man has twisted and bent the Word to his own means, to satisfy what ever...greed, ego...
I couldn't even begin to presume I could have a theological discussion with [much as I would like to think I could ] anyone, but I could refer you to a site www.godswordforyou.com the author is a Rosemary Bardsley she speaks plainly and simply and answered a lot of my questions.
Another good one is a book by Morison Frank a person who set out to dis-prove the Bible and came to believe himself it's titled "Who moved the stone"
The one thing I can say is to keep it simple and don't get caught up in the 'slants' that man puts on Gospel.
I suppose the trick is to read it.
Good to hear your views...Thanks

 

[nelly]

...the kidz r driving me NUTZ ........where's that masking tape. .......................I'll b lookin forward to reading everyones comments.......later
Cheers

 

[Rafa]

The one thing I can say is to keep it simple and don't get caught up in the 'slants' that man puts on Gospel.
I suppose the trick is to read it.

Well said Nelly,

I think its important to read it for yourself...
In particular... I would suggest reading the first 4 books of the New Testament, commonly called the GOSPELS.... This is as close an account as you can get about Jesus' life and teachings and is what true Christianity 'should be' based on! There is no mention of revenge, of violence, of warmongering.... rather how to live your life, in union with GOD and your NEIGHBOUR...

IMHO you should forget about the rest of the Bible as that is more the history of Israel and Judaism (Old Testament) and then further writings by followers of Jesus later on... (rest of the New Testament)... and are what I would considers MAN's twist on Gods Word!

For those who don't beleive in GOD, read the GOSPELS, but ignore the GOD references.... what do you have left... Do unto others as you would like others do unto you....

AMAZING.... who would have thought of that!!!

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

For those who don't beleive in GOD, read the GOSPELS, but ignore the GOD references.... what do you have left... Do unto others as you would like others do unto you....

I think all atheists could learn something from it.