This message was self-deleted by its author

[uhnope]

This message was self-deleted by its author (uhnope) on Mon Jul 20, 2015, 03:16 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[DavidDvorkin]

1. No one "knows about reincarnation"

Given that it's just another baseless belief.

[tymorial]

2. Faith doesn't require base.

[gcomeau]

4. True.

...but claiming superior understanding of/expertise on a topic does.

[zeemike]

12. Yeo claiming superior understanding...

Like the first post in this thread...claiming it is baseless when the poster likely knows virtually nothing about the thousands of year old Tibetan practices or Buddhism.
Because the posters reality is the only one that could be true...they teach that is school

[DavidDvorkin]

13. There is only one reality

Mystical beliefs with no basis in reality are not part of reality.

[zeemike]

16. So you know what reality is then?

Because you say there is no basis for it.
Amazing to me when you cannot explain some basic principles of it...like gravity or the other mysteries of the universe...all you have is theory which is enough to convince you that you know all about it...and your theory requires one great miricle...the big bang, and you can explain all the rest.

Science has become dogmatic and lost the ability to discover.

[DavidDvorkin]

18. The understanding of reality that science has built

is based on solid evidence. The mystical version is based on babble.

[zeemike]

20. Solid evidence of the big bang?

That once there was nothing (or what science prefers to call a singularity) and it exploded and created the whole universe?

Sounds like mystical babble to me.

[DavidDvorkin]

21. It is a model used to explain the data

That's how science works. If more data are measured that undermine the model, it will be modified or abandoned in favor of a better model. But all the models are deductions from actual data. They are not based on mystical babble. They are not plucked out of thin air.

[zeemike]

24. And reincarnation is the model that explains their data.

But sense your model of things...that mater is all that exists...conflicts with that, so their model must be wrong.
And there is nothing empirical about the evidence for your model. In fact there is a lot of data that shows it is wrong.

[progressoid]

28. Reincarnation is the model that explains their faith. Not data.

I'm unaware of any quantitative data supporting reincarnation.

[zeemike]

43. That's my point, you are unaware.

And not likely to ever look there to see it...because your faith will not permit it.
No different really than creationist...their faith will not permit them to explore other ideas.
And for the same reason, it could destroy the safe world of belief.

[Gore1FL]

88. There is no data

If there was data, it would be pretty well-known given the subject.

[zeemike]

89. Well known by who?

As if all people know about Tibetan Buddhism or the subject of reincarnation.
What scientist would ever admit to looking into it?...it would end his carrer...they don't approve of "woo"

[Gore1FL]

96. There is supportive data or there is not.

It really doesn't travel beyond that.

[zeemike]

98. Well there is more supporting data for the theory of reincarnation

Than there is for something like the big bang.
And yet the big bang is taught in every school and believed by all of science. And the same is true for black holes.
Go figure.

[Gore1FL]

103. Please provide a credible link to an example of some of your data on reincarnation. Thanks.

Big Bang is the best theory we have concerning the creation of the universe. It is subject to change as we understand more, to be sure.

[zeemike]

105. And the key word is credible.

And who will decide what is credible, you?...but the point is that you admit there is data but that it is not credible.

Please link to ANY data to support the theory of the big bang...and I will not challenge its credibility.
You can't of course because there is none...because it is a mathematical construct that says in order to make the theory work there must be a singularity of infinite mass in a point in space infinitely small...a miracle of miracles...and without it the big bang could not exist as a theory.

My point is this, we are dealing with conformational bias...if a theory confirms your bias you will accept it with or without data to support it...and if a theory does not confirm your bias no evidence presented will be deemed credible.
That is how our minds work...or should I say fail to work.

[Gore1FL]

117. There is no credible data

it was a trick question to demonstrate your claim cannot be supported.

[Warren Stupidity]

119. huh?

Gravitational Waves from Big Bang Detected
A curved signature in the cosmic microwave background light provides proof of inflation and spacetime ripples

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/

Incredible Discovery Provides Evidence for the Big Bang Theory
http://space.io9.com/have-physicists-detected-gravitational-waves-yes-1545591865

Astronomers Discover First Direct Proof of the Big Bang Expansion
http://gizmodo.com/astronomers-discover-first-direct-proof-of-the-big-bang-1545525927

You basically have to be a Creationist level denialist to be clinging to that argument of yours.

[zeemike]

120. It is not an argument it is skepticism that we know all about things.

Well we don't...far from it. And I don't see the difference between saying the universe came out of nothing and saying god created it...it's a miracle ether way.
If you want to know my theory it is that time is an illusion and there was no beginning and there will be no end...and that is no more outrageous than the big bang.
And BTW Buddhist and most eastern religions believe it is illusion.

But you take just this one thing and you see it is evidence of a theory of a theory.

Gravitational waves have been observed before, but the B-mode polarization is something new. This is a kind of gravitational wave that cosmological theorists have predicted would peak during those first 10-34 seconds of the primordial universe when we exploded from nothing into everything. So this announcement today confirms our first real observations of early inflation. Now that we can see B-mode gravitational waves, those observations put limits on just what happened when our universe was young, and how it got to be way it is today.

I am sorry that questioning your strongly held belief is upseting...but I do.

[Arugula Latte]

123. What is your evidence? Some dude remembers being King Tut in a previous life?

You do realize you're revealing yourself to be incredibly ignorant by dismissing the big bang just because it doesn't sound right to you.

Very laughable.

[zeemike]

128. Like I said in this same subthread, ridicule does not shame me like you think it does

or should.

And no evidence I could give would be good enough...I know that from doing this many times over the last 20 years or so...the only evidence acceptable is that which confirms your own bias.
So I chose to call into question yours.

[Arugula Latte]

129. Again, you've provided zero evidence.

[zeemike]

131. And that is all you will get from me.

I am not out to prove anything.
If you want to know you can look for yourself...that is the only way people discover things.

[cemaphonic]

149. Huh, there's plenty of supporting evidence of black holes.

We've located dozens of them including an enormous (like 4 million of our suns enormous) one right in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.

Please share this data you have on reincarnation. I'm sure it would be most illuminating.

[zeemike]

150. That's a theory not a fact.

The very nature of the theoretical black hole prevents proof of it.

[cemaphonic]

156. Ah, the "just a theory" argument

because everyone knows that a scientific theory is just the same as a hunch.

Quasars and gravitational lensing are both things that we can see with telescopes, and provide evidence that black holes exist and behave like our theoretical model of them says they should.

But I've learned long ago that it it pointless to argue with anti-science contractions who think they're freethinkers, so I will wish you luck on revolutionizing our understanding of biology with your work on reincarnation.

[zeemike]

157. Well we know a theory is not the same as a fact.

But you would not know that to listen to some people. Any questioning of it is heresy and opens you up to ridicule and accusations of being anti science.

And they are not settled science...and neither is the big bang.

But biology has nothing to do with reincarnation...unless you want to tell us that biology proves there is no consciousness after death...can it do that?...can it prove that there is nothing but biology in the universe?
But I understand that this is a fundamental principle of atheism, that matter is all that is and there is nothing else but matter, so they can never accept the notion of consciousness surviving the death of the body. And no evidence presented will change the mind of a true believer whether it is a deist or atheist...we hold on to what makes us comfortable.

But I am not working on revolutionizing anything...I just keep an open mind. Because I think that is the healthy thing to do.

[uhnope]

25. you sound like the Chinese Communists during the rape of Tibet

For you to spout off on this thread about the ongoing genocide of Tibet is truly insensitive.

You are also showing your ignorance -- the Dalai Lama believes in science and objective reality and conforming beliefs to scientific discoveries. For you to say the understandings of the Dalai Lama are "plucked out of thin air" shows you know nothing about what he is talking about, or about meditation and the subjective realities understood by practitioners of meditation, the monks. Many of the things that the monks can do in and via deep states of meditation are still unexplained by science. The understanding of reincarnation is not "plucked out of thin air" but is a product of their observation. You can reject it but you cannot call it "plucked out of thin air."

I am not a Buddhist, btw, and hold to no organized religion. Even if I were an atheist I would find your aping of Chinese Communist atheism on a thread about Tibetans fighting genocide by China to be disgusting.

Get a grip

[DavidDvorkin]

32. I guess this childish response is the best you can do.

[uhnope]

34. that's it? That's the response of the supposedly rational atheist?

You've shown us your mettle. Thank you, you're excused.

[DavidDvorkin]

37. Sometimes, dismissal is the only reasonable response to irrational nonsense.

[AlbertCat]

45. Sometimes, dismissal is the only reasonable response to irrational nonsense.

Like Barney Frank said about arguing with a dining room table.

[uhnope]

69. then you're dismissed

[Arugula Latte]

122. It's pretty pathetic that you dismiss the well-studied expansion of the universe

and all the supporting evidence as "mystical babble."

Maybe you can tell Stephen Hawking he is full of shit and babble.

[zeemike]

126. Well what to me is pathetic is group think and hero worship.

It means you have no confidence in your own intellect and rely on your superior's to do your thinking for you.

Well that is not science it is cultish...no different IMO than if it were a religion.

I chose to keep my mind open to new ideas and know the risk of ridicule from orthodoxy...but it does not shame me like you think it does.

[Arugula Latte]

127. Wow.

I'm supposed to study quantum physics for decades and draw my own conclusions, huh?

I'm happy that many great minds have built on knowledge dating back centuries, even millenia, and that they continually test, reevaluate, challenge, update, and refine their findings.

Religion is based on nonsense that people pulled out of the air, or their asses, or because they were told as kids to believe in a primitive book of goatherder mythology. There's no basis for believing any supernatural nonsense.

It's frankly astounding that you don't understand the very basic differences between "faith" and the scientific method.

[zeemike]

130. The big bang is nonsense people pulled out of their ass to create a myth of creation

That did not require a god...reliogn had one so anti religion had to have one too.
And you have been taught that creation story from childhood on and believe it just as do creationist believe it was god that did it...the irony is you both say it happened in a second...boom instant universe.

The whole reason for the big bang is that the universe will not work without that singularity mircle...the math requires infinite mass in infinitely small space and so they created it. As long as you have the number infinity you can make it work.

But I understand perfectly well the differences between science and faith. Faith is a belief in the unknown and science is a belief of only the known but they pretend to understand a lot more about the unknown than they really do because they reject faith in the unknown.

I am not anti science, I am anti dogmatic science.

[brooklynite]

136. I observe that your response is to criticize data presented on the Big Bang

and refuse to provide any data on reincarnation.

This is like Intelligent Design advocates who spend all their time attacking evolution, and never explain how their own theory works.

I'd say your posts are getting al;l the respect they deserve.

[zeemike]

139. The data is not evidence of the big bang.

It is evidence about the theory of what evidence one should see if their was a big bang.

And to you what is attacking is called critical thinking...which is essential to science...otherwise dogmas grow and consume science...just as it has the religion you dispise.

But I don't post to gain your respect...I don't need it because I respect myself.
And my ego is not so large as to think I know how things in the universe work...in fact I believe that wisdom is the understanding of how little we know and the willingness to admit it openly.

[brooklynite]

140. The fact still remains...

in this entire thread, you provided no data in support of reincarnation.

[zeemike]

142. I keep telling you, I am not trying to prove reincarnation.

I am questioning the belief that says they know it is bullshit.
If you start with the premise that you already know all about it you will never learn anything...and only a fool would try to prove something to them.

Besides I don't need to prove anything...my intellectual well being is not at stake.

[brooklynite]

146. A trite cliche

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Since there is no evidence of anything beyond the natural world, I Have no problem criticizing assertions of it (whether by you or the Dalai Lama)

[zeemike]

147. And yet the extraordinary claim of the big bang and black holes.

require no evidence at all for you to believe them...go figure.

And infinitely small points with infant mass is kind of beyond the natural world

[brooklynite]

148. Not, no evidence...evidence you appear to disregard.

By comparison, you've provided no evidence whatsoever for me to disregard.

[zeemike]

153. There can be no evidence of something that happened many billion years ago.

There are no witnesses and no observations can be made of it and no physical evidence could exist...just theory.

But that is the bad thing about dogmatic science...they are so dogmatic about it many are convinced these theories are in fact actual facts.

[cemaphonic]

151. The big bang theory was first proposed by a Jesuit priest

Do you suppose he was anti-religion and desperately searching for a creation myth?

And as it happened, many of his contemporaries (including Einstein) were initially skeptical about the Big Bang precisely because it had the ring of the mystical about it. But the math and observational evidence of the universe have all supported it so far.

[zeemike]

154. No I think he was trying to explain the creation myth.

And make it acceptable to science. And science liked it because it gave them the miracle they needed to explain the universe in material terms.

But the observations are the red shift in light and the only way they could make an expanding universe work is by math with the use of infinity to create the necessary energy for an expanding universe...and infinity gave them that...because infinity makes all numbers powerful.

And there are scientist today that question the theory, but you would not know it if you just listen to orthodoxy.

[brooklynite]

155. Ah, yes...the "you weren't there" argument...lately espoused by the scholarly Ken Ham...

...proprietor of the Creation Museum.

THE “WERE YOU THERE?” ARGUMENT – HAM/NYE DEBATE

I did not watch but about 5 minutes of this debate. I was doing something important. I taught my son how to play Ticket To Ride and we had family game night.

What?!!??!? you think. How could someone so into the creation/evolution thing miss this debate. Well, as I said, it’s family game night. But the other reason is that I knew, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that there would be nothing new presented at this debate. Bill might stumble, he might eviscerate Ham, he might not even show up. But the arguments that Ham has are all at least 50 years old. Some of them go back over 200 years.

IF there was some kind of evidence of the unique creation of an animal species, or that Earth was 6,000 or 10,000 years old, or that the god of the Bible existed, I am confident that the first we heard of it would not be in this debate. Evidence is discussed in scientific literature, not the sound stage of a creationist ‘museum’.

Still, this will give bloggers like me fodder for a few days as we utterly crush every single argument that Ken Ham made. I have decided to start with a simple one (and the one I heard in the few minutes I listened)… “Where you there?”

http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2014/02/04/the-were-you-there-argument-hamnye-debate/

I assume you believe that man co-existed with dinosaurs? Because, of course, "I wasn't there".

[Cal33]

143. "Science has become dogmatic and lost the ablity to discover." Wouldn't it be more correct to say

that "some scientists have become dogmatic?" Stephen Hawking, for example, is an atheist. Albert
Einstein followed no particular religion, but he did believe in the existence of God.

Einstein wrote that he couldn't believe that such order could exist in the entire universe without
there being a Supreme Intelligence present to sustain it.

I think it's possible that some people have come across some unfortunate incident involving
his/her church or religion, and threw out his religion altogether, and God with it, too. This is like
throwing out the baby with the bath water.

At around age 20 a friend of mine heard his pastor preach one Sunday that all those who have
come across Christianity, and yet have not converted to it, will go to hell after death.
My friend was and still is a great admirer of Gandhi, who had studied law in England as a young
man. Gandhi certainly did know about Christianity but did not convert to it. After the service, he
approached the preacher and asked if he thought Gandhi was in hell. The preacher said, "Yes."

That did it. My friend left his church and has been an atheist ever since.

[zeemike]

145. Well I stand corrected...of course you are right.

But the dogmatism of some has a chilling effect especially when it comes from the top...as shown here in this thread you will be ridiculed if you do not conform to the orthodoxy. So those who do not conform must remain silent.

And you are dead on about christianity...I suspect preachers have made more atheist than science ever did...they too have adopted dogma and punitive measures for those who do not go along with the program.

All I can say I know for sure is that our existence here is far more complicated than science or religion knows...and that this brief life we live is not the beginning and the end.

[bjobotts]

47. your dreams won't make sense except in the dream world

[Sunlei]

55. Everyone has their 'own' reality.

[DavidDvorkin]

67. Only in the sense that

we have a mental model of reality that we build from our own sensory input, modified by what we learn about what science knows about reality.

The actual reality, of which the model is just a model, is a single, actual thing. It doesn't vary depending on who is modeling it. It's objective, not subjective.

There is no way to prove that statement. It's an assumption. But it's a necessary assumption. Without it, we have mental chaos instead of meaningful thought.

[Surya Gayatri]

57. ...

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

'your philosophy' i.e., philosophy (or learning) in general.

The emphasis here should be on "dreamt of", as Hamlet is pointing out how little even the most educated people can explain.

The limits of university education, scientific enquiry and rationality -- not to deny them their due, just can't account for everything.

[DavidDvorkin]

66. You're confusing the limits of presence knowledge

with the limits of possible knowledge. We know far more than previous generations, and future generations will know far more than we do. Our understanding of the universe continues to progress, often by huge leaps. And we know from centuries of experience that science is the way we continue to learn more about the universe.

By contrast, mysticism has nothing to offer but babble.

[Hekate]

93. Only one reality? My laugh for the day. Bishop Berkeley would beg to differ.

[DavidDvorkin]

95. I have Jonathan Swift on my side

Supposedly, when told by his maid that Berkely was at the front door, Swift said that she should not open the door, for if nothing material existed if it was not perceived, then let the bishop not perceive the door and walk through it.

[Hekate]

97. The great satirist never claimed there was only one reality, nor that he knew it.

[DavidDvorkin]

99. Do you have reason to think that he thought otherwise?

[Warren Stupidity]

102. Berkeley was a freaking nut job.

Had he proposed his nonsense as an intellectual amusement that would have been fine, but he actually believed he was onto something.

[gcomeau]

14. Nope.

Recognizing that a lack of empirical support for a claim belies the possibility of any faction claiming the title of expert on the subject is different from claiming to be the expert in the subject.

[zeemike]

19. What evidence would you consider empirical in reincarnation?

Have you even looked at the evidence that convinced them there is something to it?

But I would guess not sense it conflicts with your belief that you have no empirical evidence to support.

FYI the way the Dali Lama is selected is interisting...after his death a comity of monks who knew him travel around the country with personal items of the dead Lama and question young children on them...if they find one that knows all the answers he is the next one.
It seems to me that is evidence whether you like it or not...but you will argue it is not emperical because it just could not be...your faith says so.

[wheniwasincongress]

40. You have a really low standard for evidence

if children saying "I recognize that!" or taking an interest in an item is evidence of reincarnation. Especially when not performed under scrupulous observation (and not monk friends.)

[zeemike]

46. Well it is their standard of evidence that matters not mine.

And they have done it 14 times in the last few hundred years so I think they know what they are doing by now.

But the procedure is not as simple as just recognizing an object they are presented with objects that are and are not the right ones...it is a true test.

And who are we to say there is nothing to it...we are so arrogant in our science.

[wheniwasincongress]

60. Is that you, Jeb Bush?

Arrogant in our science? We don't have "our" science and they "their" science. It applies to the entire world and is how we determine facts...how we determine how the body works, how gravity works, how plants grow, how the mind deteriorates... And whether the "evidence" provided for reincarnation responds properly. It doesn't, and their tests of choosing a child is very basic, simple math. You will eventually find a child who points out the correct items. If I say I imagine a white house with a picket fence and two dogs in the house and a red car parked out front, all owned by a family named Johnson, you will find at least dozens of this type of household. Do I have powers because I "saw" or imagined such a house? It's math, and it's universal.

Well if they've been doing it for centuries, they must be doing something right, right? Because nothing ridiculous or immoral continues for that longer than that!... We all know that rape, murder, harmful hygiene practices, and backwards baseless beliefs died out a long time ago...

[zeemike]

62. Ah yes, the inevitable you must be one of them.

If you disagree with the groupthink.

What makes us arrogant is the dismissiveness of anything outside our own small belief system...as if nothing else could ever be anything but pure bunk...which by the way is also common in conservatism.
Well that is not science it is ego speaking. And science filled with dogma is stagnant.

[bjobotts]

48. Like the monks haven't thought of that. So easily fooled huh

[roguevalley]

56. I love how people are as emphatic about this being hooey as supporters are that its true.

I also find it laughable that they demand absolute proof for the hypothesis that the soul survives death and can return but refuse to provide the same absolute proof that their hypothesis ... this is all bunk ... is true. Since the side that laughs at this stuff is so wrapped up on science SURELY they can provide exquisite peer reviewed proof that they are telling the absolute truth and not just blowing smoke rings out their butts.

Just a suggestion

[wheniwasincongress]

58. The party making the claim

is the one who must provide proof. They are the only ones who claim to have proof. Don't equate these two groups as both being on the same level of annoying/crazy/whatever, because they're not. This is like people saying Dems and Repubs are the same.

[gcomeau]

65. I don't love how people never seem to comprehend burden of proof.

It gets tiring.

If I am going to claim I have the supernatural power to, say, project my brain to a planet on the distant side of the galaxy where I have a second body that I use to explore strange alien worlds... it is my burden to provide evidence of this rather extraordinary assertion. It is not IN ANY WAY your responsibility to prove it wrong. If I fail to provide sufficient evidence to corroborate the extraordinary claim I am making you are fully justified in rejecting it as "hooey".


Same goes for the existence of all powerful magic superbeings who rule the universe, or the ability to magically transmit your soul/consciousness from one generation to another by body jumping, or any other claim that flies in the face of our standard observations of how the world operates.

[AlbertCat]

83. I love how people are as emphatic about this being hooey as supporters are that its true.

Maybe Shirley MacLaine can shed some light on this serious subject.

[wheniwasincongress]

59. Yes.

They aren't performing these tests under even poor scientific standards. They show a group of items to kids and ask them to pick out items (that belonged to the deceased.) Eventually you will get a kid who points out the correct items. Is this good proof that the child was reincarnated? Is this really satisfactory to you?

[FiveGoodMen]

72. Which is precisely what's wrong with it

[tymorial]

75. Then it wouldn't be faith.

You can complain about it all you want, it doesn't change the nature of faith or its existence. Faith isn't like money, you cannot set out to create it through work. You either have it or you do not. One cannot impose conditions on faith. Faith and evidence/conditions are mutually exclusive.

[FiveGoodMen]

78. Which is why faith has nothing to do with truth

Some guy in a 'home' may have faith that he's Napoleon ... or God.

But the rest of us don't share his faith.

If asked why not, we give reasons like "Napoleon is dead" or "If he's god then what about the guy in the next room who also thinks HE's god?"

If everyone has their own truth, then "truth" just means "what I like to think".

If we all have to share a real truth, we're not going to get there by faith.

[tymorial]

144. Linking faith with psychological disorder. how original.

You seek to insert objective truth into the argument but you fail to grasp that faith is entirely subjective truth. It doesn't matter if "the rest of us" do not agree. Agreement is irrelevant. The faithful do not care if you agree. They do not care if the scientific method "proves" them wrong. They don't care if others think they are mentally ill. They have faith. Your argument does not change the nature of faith or unravel it in any way. Faith is something you have or you do not. Contextualizing is as irrelevant as agreement.

[jberryhill]

38. But that's not really the claim

The claim is one of relative expertise.

Now, I have never read the Harry Potter novels.

There are people who are completely absorbed in them. They certainly know, much better than I, the rules of the non-existent game of quiddich.

There are people who have an extensive knowledge of the Klingon language. Do you?

Neither Harry Potter nor Klingons are real - they are entirely imaginary. However, there are certainly people with advanced expertise in those subjects, just as there are experts in any number of fictional things.

Who is better to understand the character of MacBeth? You or a chair of Shakespeare studies at some university?

Now, on the subject of Tibetan Buddhist faith and practice, the Dalai Lama is certainly the highest authority.

It's like arguing with Bob Dylan over the meaning of the lyrics to one of his own songs.

One can certainly be an expert in something fictional or otherwise the product of human imagination.

[DavidDvorkin]

44. Fair enough

I have no argument with that.

That's not how I interpreted the claim, but I can see that that's a valid interpretation of the article.

[former9thward]

84. A post where one sentence contradicts the other.

Congrats!

[gcomeau]

3. In related news...

...that guy up the street is pretending to understand how Gandalf's staff works better than I do, which is obviously just ridiculous since I'm the self declared expert on it.

Bah! How dare he!

[DavidDvorkin]

6. Hah!

[arcane1]

5. Why anyone listens to this guy, I'll never know.

Dime-store pop philosophy from a guy that nut-jobs decided was the ghost of the dead guy who came before.

I have friends from every walk of life who refer to him as "His Holiness"

[christx30]

9. Because china is trying to hijack their faith

in order to fracture their people, and make their occupation of their land easier on them. "Only the chinese leadership can choose the reincarnation of your Lama." They'll pick someone that is more friendly to their occupation. Less of a united front. Less people willing to oppose them.
What china is doing is nothing less than the destruction of their culture.

[Sunlei]

53. Not hijack, modern day destruction of a culture. like a 21st century Rape of Nanking or Formosa

Formosa disappeared in a day, including any 'troublemakers'

[HFRN]

77. i agree - people say 'The Dali Lama says' like the guy's EF Hutton

from the old TV ad, not in reality

[uhnope]

7. can you atheists who mimic the Communist rapers of Tibet please go away from this thread nt

Last edited Thu Jul 16, 2015, 10:38 PM - Edit history (1)

[Peacetrain]

11. Good luck with that

Not a Buddhist either, but the mistreatment and killing of the Tibetan Buddhists has been a disgrace.. and this is China's attempt to finally destroy the country..

[Sunlei]

54. IMO, I do not think ithelps any 'cause' to make 'atheists' into a Disparagement word

[uhnope]

70. not all atheists... the bitter and irrational ones on this thread.

[AlbertCat]

82. mimic the Communist rapers

I haven't taken over any counties. Never rapped anyone.

What ARE you talking about?



Atheists are JUST LIKE the Chinese Communists? Is that what you mean, because if you do, you might need a Klonopin or something.

Reincarnation is still bunk.

Here's hoping when Tibet is free of the Chinese, they will also free themselves from ridiculous ancient superstitions that give huge amounts of power to people for no good reason.

[uhnope]

86. Mimic in words. The same things said by the Communist Chinese that invaded Tibet

about the Tibet's religion is being said by the atheists on this thread. It's a really shitty place for the atheists to make a stand. It's like going to Auschwitz to make a stand for freedom of speech by yelling Heil Hitler (except it's just the Internet where nothing really matters and yes I went Godwin but just for the metaphorical point.)

But it's the Internet so who cares.

[AlbertCat]

87. It's a really shitty place for the atheists to make a stand.

The foolishness and ridiculousness of ancient superstitions knows no boundaries, or governments. These elements have no part in atheism. We are not trying to invade a country. Atheism is not politics. And atheists have been saying these things long before there were Chinese Communists. If governments mimic us...we can't help that.

[Major Nikon]

106. You're starting to sound kinda bitter and irrational

[uhnope]

107. see post #104 AKA WIYFP?

[Major Nikon]

108. I already did and it was hilarious

...and you should be commended for it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123044112#post22

[uhnope]

109. good. keep yr hate on yr own thread

like a good little atheist kidult

[Major Nikon]

116. You are proving the point brilliantly

Please do continue.

[ananda]

8. He lost me when he became a media darling.

But I do like his friendly demeanor.

[bjobotts]

49. Like you followed him before that huh. lol

[christx30]

85. He's doing that for a reason.

His country was invaded. He's trying to get the invaders out. He's trying to keep world opinion on his side so the Chinese, while not leaving, are at least chastised for being the assholes.
He's trying to help his people. That's why China gets pissy when a US president hosts him. Because China doesn't want him to have any relevance. And that's why they are trying to manipulate the reincarnation "process". They want the next Dali Lama to be someone they can control. Someone friendly to their cause.

It's very much like The Last Airbender. (The creators of the show probably used the situation in China and Tibet as the basis of their story) The prophesy said that the Avatar (who was the only one that could stop them) was going to be an airbender. So the Fire Nation, who wanted to conquer the world, killed the last Avatar, and killed all of the Airbenders, to prevent the reincarnation of the Avatar, and stop any opposition to their plans.

China is the bad guys here.

[ananda]

100. Hmm

I guess I have an issue with public posturing and superiority claims, you know, my religion is better than yours, my spirituality is greater than yours.

You could say that I've not been a very good or conscienscious guru or authority figure groupie. But I do appreciate spiritual beliefs and journeys, and I suppose it would be fair to say that it's more the journey and the belief that grabs me.

As far as the person who holds them, that is pretty much irrelevant unless they also have some sort of place in society or government that attracts me to their character. Possible examples beyond famous people like Gandhi or Mandela: that good, decent farmer who spent his time while farming memorizing and reciting Dante; or the invisible underpaid healer who cares for his or her patient or loved one; or the writer like Steinbeck who could defy convention and write about social issues greatly and thus consider himself less worthy of his Nobel prize than others more in line with the art for art's sake types.

Being a decent human being in the secular world, then, would attract me to the person separately from the journey or the beliefs. You could even say that that has been my struggle, that of developing character in a world that can be very confusing and abusive in that regard.

[truebluegreen]

111. If you are speaking about the Dalai Lama

regarding "public posturing and superiority claims" you are very far from the truth. This is who he is:

"He also asked those in the capacity crowd to be tolerant of all religions, whether they choose to embrace religious beliefs or not. "Faith and respect," he said. "Faith in your own religion, respect for all religions."

https://around.uoregon.edu/story/dalai-lama/dalai-lama-talks-oneness-humility-appreciative-uo-crowd

[Chiquitita]

10. interesting that he suggests the title might end when he dies

Thanks for posting this, but clearly some du'ers aren't tolerant or patient enough to even think through the political implications of what he is saying here.

Also, important to note is that the Dalai Lama is no theist and his school of Buddhism does not believe in any kind of eternal "I/self" that reincarnates.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. How can there be TWO Dalai Lamas?

[TeeYiYi]

17. Easy!...

They're fraternal...



TYY

[Spitfire of ATJ]

23. Surprised you didn't go with this...

[Uncle Joe]

22. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, uhnope.

[Warpy]

26. I suppose you didn't know the Buddha, himself, was an atheist.

Maybe reading outside an obviously narrow scope is necessary.

[progressoid]

30. You sound like a Chinese Communist!

stop it!

[DavidDvorkin]

33. How absurd.

[bjobotts]

50. It's the expectations I tell you.What did u expect

Like fish in the water looking for the water that's supposed to be everywhere...but they just don't see it cause they expected something else would be water.

[candelista]

27. The Chinese won't choose the new DL directly

They will get the monasteries involved. Strange activity for 'communists,' but so is the Free Enterprise Zone.

[restorefreedom]

29. his full message is very interesting

he is clearly concerned about how china will use his death whenever it happens as an opportunity to hijack Tibetan buddhism and insert their political will into their traditions.

he also discusses the possibility of a lama appointing a successor before his death. wondering if he is going to end up doing that to try and thwart the chinese

full message

http://www.dalailama.com/messages/statement-of-his-holiness-the-fourteenth-dalai-lama-tenzin-gyatso-on-the-issue-of-his-reincarnation

edit. ps i think it is pretty crappy to hijack this thread when the op tried to keep the focus on the issue of china and tibet. there are plenty of places to discuss whether religion should exist at all.

[progressoid]

42. Kind of hard to not talk about religion in a post about religion.

[restorefreedom]

61. true, but i got the impression

that the overarching theme was the suppression of the tibetan people and their religion by a political maneuver. not whether the underlying religious idea has supporting evidence. that is a discussion that will never end.

[Lordquinton]

31. The buddist system of reincarnation is rather opressive

Setting up an eternal cycle of opression, that you deserve the circumstances you were born into and better luck next life leads doen a dark rabbit hole.

That being said Chinese imperialism has been horrible to the reigon, and that people defend them because they aren't white os sad. They need to gtfo of Tibet.

[uhnope]

36. The idea of "deserves" completely misunderstands the concept.

But we agree on the important things so let's be friendly

[Lordquinton]

79. It simplifies it

But the point is that no matter our views on their beliefs, china's occupation and crimes as a result are inexcusable.

You can think that reincarnation is bunk, and still want china out of tibet for all the same reasosn.

[Sunlei]

52. spoken like the Lord of the Rats.

[Lordquinton]

80. So you don't want china out of tibet?

Not very progressive of you. Maybe include more than an empty ad hom next time.

[Hestia]

63. If you read the OP, I'm not seeing where reincarnation is oppressive - you are in control

of you, and as a result of your actions today may play out several lifetimes from now. From my humble understanding, when you pass, your soul goes to the Bardo and you will find out then about how your next life plays out. You can go up or down.

For those who remember their past lives, rebirth is a clear experience. However, most ordinary beings forget their past lives as they go through the process of death, intermediate state and rebirth. As past and future rebirths are slightly obscure to them, we need to use evidence-based logic to prove past and future rebirths to them.
 


The Dalai Lama states that there those enlightened souls who Choose to come back and help the rest of us go through our lives, teaching us, especially in regards to the disciplined mind.

How rebirth takes place



There are two ways in which someone can take rebirth after death: rebirth under the sway of karma and destructive emotions and rebirth through the power of compassion and prayer. Regarding the first, due to ignorance negative and positive karma are created and their imprints remain on the consciousness. These are reactivated through craving and grasping, propelling us into the next life. We then take rebirth involuntarily in higher or lower realms. This is the way ordinary beings circle incessantly through existence like the turning of a wheel. Even under such circumstances ordinary beings can engage diligently with a positive aspiration in virtuous practices in their day-to-day lives. They familiarise themselves with virtue that at the time of death can be reactivated providing the means for them to take rebirth in a higher realm of existence. On the other hand, superior Bodhisattvas, who have attained the path of seeing, are not reborn through the force of their karma and destructive emotions, but due to the power of their compassion for sentient beings and based on their prayers to benefit others. They are able to choose their place and time of birth as well as their future parents. Such a rebirth, which is solely for the benefit of others, is rebirth through the force of compassion and prayer.



There is a really good book - The Journey of Souls - that kinda/sorta goes into this. We are all born at a certain level (lets say 1) and go through reincarnation after reincarnation, until we start sorting things out. We progress through decisions today that will affect us later. According to this book, there is no one here on earth who is above a level 6.

Those that "go on" go to a different Mystery School (think of the planets as living embodiment's of Mystery Schools - it is why we are all so different), where they become a lower level on their new plane.

Earth is supposed to be the lowest level, where new souls are incarnated. It takes many lifetimes to figure this crap out and if you look around, you can "see" it. Those souls who are trapped into decisions they don't know how to get out of. Murder, pillaging, plunder, rape, etc. No one gets away scot free. Then there are those beautiful souls who truly help others without a thought for themselves, but not in a passive-aggressive way. "Sometimes thy unknowestly entertain angels."

As always, YMMV

[Lordquinton]

81. Ok, but Auschwitz

Millions of people screwed up so badly in their past lives that they deserved it? And the people running the show, were they carrying out divine punishment, or acting of their will and the universe just had millions of evil souls on hand to punish?

Either way it's too horrible to try and reconcile.

[Throd]

35. Anyone pretending to know about reincarnation is pretending.

such applies to the Doll Eye Llama and the Soulless Commies.

[jberryhill]

41. Anyone who knows about Harry Potter is likewise pretending

How dare JK Rowling claim to know more about Harry Potter than anyone else.

[LokiandMala]

39. Thank you!

Thank you for posting this information. The Tibetan people are incredibly peaceful and amazing people. It is such a shame what the Chinese government has made them endure and how they have destroyed their culture.

[Sunlei]

51. I wish China would get out of Tibet & the Dalai Lama could go home, that is their homeland

There is no doubt that China will dominate and take over Tibet like a slow death from cancer.. But Tibet is only land Dalai Lama, the people can bring Tibet and the beliefs somewhere safer.

China controls and takes what they can, like FORMOSA.

In my lifetime it was easy to see how China steamrolled over Formosa and people disappeared . In a single day over 200 people, computer literate people were never seen again. But it is known China put those people in prison and they still work with computers for China.

Every country that deals with china should be wary, their culture is to dominate the weak, 'troublemakers' will be removed, erased, if usable to China imprisoned for life.

[Hestia]

64. Yeah, their mindset is generations, where we think decades. They play the long game n/t

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

68. I gotcher next Dalai Lama right here ...

Edit to add: This, or maybe the Chinese leadership will choose someone worse.

[snooper2]

71. ROFLMAO at the update

[uhnope]

73. tenets of atheism

?1409343048

[uriel1972]

90. Oh please...

Grow up a little.
Your simplistic little picture of Atheists as raging poppy-heads is old and lame. I'm sure once you provide evidence for souls and reincarnation most atheists will reevaluate their position.

[brooklynite]

74. Have you noticed that people who believe in reincarnation...

...never seem to have led dull, struggling, oppressed lives?

[NobodyHere]

91. Have you ever been to India?

[brooklynite]

110. Yes.

[HFRN]

76. if he's claiming copyright infringement, he'd better get in line

behind the deity called 'Sony'

[Hekate]

92. China is enacting cultural genocide on the Tibetans, without a doubt. I don't understand how...

...it is in any way "progressive" to make excuses for that, or to mock the people and their religious beliefs because they seem strange to Americans. As well to have mocked the Eastern European Jews for wearing payas and tzitzit and tefillin even as they and their culture were being exterminated by Hitler. You would be ashamed to do that.

A few observations, as someone who studied comparative religions intensively a few years back: Tibetan Buddhism, when shorn of its baroque ornament, can be seen to have studied human psychology for centuries. Their scholars (and the Dalai Lama is a scholar) have been studying the workings of the human brain for centuries, with the same intensity that the West has devoted to what it thinks is hard science.

But we've got people at DU who think they "know" what Tibetan Buddhism is about, and they "know" it is worthless. They should be ashamed of their ignorance and their inhumane attitude.

[uhnope]

94. THANK YOU ntt

[Warren Stupidity]

101. Bitter atheists are the best!

And yes of course pointing out how ludicrous the dalai lama's utterances on incarnation are, that's just like occupying a country and such.

[uhnope]

104. would you slam Judaism as a religion on a thread about the Holocaust?

What is your fucking problem?

[Warren Stupidity]

113. your thread is about reincarnation.

So yes, if you started a thread about idiotic Judaic religious beliefs thinking that because of the holocaust such nonsense is above reproach, you would discover that they aren't and those beliefs would get ridiculed.

However as there simply is not a tibetan holocaust, you've gone all godwin here. Good luck with that.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

114. With Karma, you may come back next time ...

... as a bitter atheist.

It's not so bad.

[Warren Stupidity]

115. I suppose we are bitter atheists because of some horrible misdeeds in former lives.

Perhaps for not taking pompous horseshit pronounced by fools seriously enough. That would be my guess anyway. On the other hand I do like the Dalai Lama, he seems to be a nice guy, buddhism is pretty good as far as religions go, and really many buddhists are basically atheists with a heaping slice of reincarnation woo piled on.

[Arugula Latte]

124. Vermin! Vermin, I tell you!

Of course, in a previous life they were Cleopatra and Shakespeare.

[truebluegreen]

112. Just a couple things, or maybe three...

in response to the other responses to this thread:

1) the scientific theory of quantum physics pretty much throws out the entire science "rule book" concerning what is possible and what is not;

2) as per Arthur C Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic;" and

3) as per me, the sum total of what we don't know boggles the mind....Acting like we've pretty much discovered everything, and science shows this and science disproves that--is imo as presumptuous as declaring God Exists! or Doesn't Exist!

I'd advise taking the Dalai Lama's advice and practicing humility.

Oh and btw, for those interested might I recommend The Universe in a Single Atom: the Convergence of Science and Spirituality...by His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

[Arugula Latte]

125. It's one thing to recognize there are a lot of things we don't yet know.

It's quite another to throw out supernatural nonsense and say: "Prove it doesn't exist!"

If there were evidence for reincarnation, that would be a different story. But there is zero evidence.

[truebluegreen]

134. According to current scientific knowledge.

That's the point. And with the possibility of an infinite number of universes, who is to say what is possible?

ETA: You know how difficult it is to prove a negative, right? Absence of proof is not proof of absence, as it were.

[Wolf Frankula]

118. To The Dalai Lama

The CIA called. Come by and pick up your check. Pick up your list of talking points for your next Hollywood party.


Wolf

[uhnope]

132. truly sucky post

and the Chinese dictatorship called.

[Wolf Frankula]

133. China Freed Tibet

Would YOU have wanted to be a serf (95%) of the population under the
Dalai Lama?

Wolf

[NuclearDem]

135. ...

Glorious People's Liberation Army has freed the oppressed Tibetan people!

[uhnope]

141. so genocide = freedom

thx. just keep posting yr sucky comments until you get the attention you need

[ozone_man]

121. No one knows about reincarnation

anymore than anyone knows about the tooth fairy.

[brooklynite]

137. Now WAIT a minuite...

...I have an ACTUAL DIME that the tooth fairy gave me. That's a lot more evidence than I've ever seen for reincarnation.

[NuclearDem]

138. That dime was Hitler in a previous life.

[still_one]

152. Tibet is being occupied for its natural resources. It is a good the the U.S. wouldn't think of

doing something like that, invading a country to control its resources