A Pagan's Theories on Recinarnation

[Isaac-Saxxon]

Originally Posted by Tomoshibi

Reincarnation

This is an article I wrote on the theories of Reincarnation. Naturally, there is no way to verify them, but they offer a comforting perspective on the subject of death. There are a number of comparisons to the Christian Ascension Theory and several points that contradict it. However, I mean no disrespect or offense to the Christian path.



Reincarnation

Read and comment, but do NOT flame.

Hey Sir Tom,
I would like to sit back on the hill a watch some sky clad gals dancing around the fire.

[Morpheus]

I read it and I disagree, but I also think the writing was flawed. I am not flaming you, but if you think your argument was well thought out and presented you are mistaken. You only provide support for your view, and for the opposing view you offer only criticism. Then you haughtily state: Now that you are familiar with the theories of reincarnation, you can better form your own theory on the matter. This is likely as close to knowing the truth as we will ever come. However, I find it wiser to base theories on observed truth instead of basing theories on other theories. The truth is you have spoon fed only your dogma hoping that the weak minded will swallow it down like pablum. If you were truly convinced that any intelligent reader could be swayed to your particular fantasy then you would have presented both the PROs and CONs of BOTH theories. But the TRUTH is that you likely DON'T KNOW enough about Christianity or ascension theory as you describe it to intelligently present both sides. I do not fault you for this as I wouldn't feel particularly qualified to tackle either issue, but I do know when someone tries to piddle on my leg and tell me it's raining.

[joepole]

>If you were truly convinced that any intelligent reader could be swayed to your particular fantasy then you would have presented both the PROs and CONs of BOTH theories.

That is not a tenet of a successful argument. A successful argument offers the strengths of one side and the weaknesses of the other. Otherwise it's news, not an argument.

If you were arguing with me about whether or not the world was flat, would you give any evidence that supported my (obviously wrong) argument that it was, indeed, flat? Of course not.

[Morpheus]

au contraire my bum watching friend. If I were truly convinced that I was right then I could confidently take the pros of your argument and refute them, or at least cast serious doubt as to their validity.

If you don't do this then you have not proven anything and you have not won the argument. You're example regarding whether or not the world is flat is an excellent example of this.

More esoteric are faith based arguments, where you cannot "prove" anything. I don't agree with Tomoshibi's views, but I respect his right to choose his own "path" as I think he would say. However, I was not the one who was pretending to tell the truth and the whole truth so that others could make an informed decision, when in fact I had not.

[LateNight]

here we go

[joepole]

>I could confidently take the pros of your argument and refute them

That is not "presenting both sides of an argument," that is presenting one side of an argument.

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by joepole

>I could confidently take the pros of your argument and refute them

That is not "presenting both sides of an argument," that is presenting one side of an argument.

I'm not following your superior intellect Joe. How can I refute something that I do not present?

For example, my colleague, Joe, says that the world is flat. In defense of his theory, Joe states A, B, and C (it will help if you imagine that A, B, and C are consistent with current accepted science). Well my friends, Joe is not correct. On point A (disprove A), on point B (disprove B), and finally on point C (disprove C). This is Comp 101 Joe.

[rhertz]

Originally Posted by LateNight

here we go

LateNight I don't always agree with you, but you called this one, didn't you?

[LateNight]

Originally Posted by rhertz

LateNight I don't always agree with you, but you called this one, didn't you?

LOL, yeah, but I was referring to Joepole and I forget who else, were arguing about what the meaning of "is" is.. or was that what makes a good argument or debate? Things have taken yet another turn.

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by rhertz

LateNight I don't always agree with you, but you called this one, didn't you?

Well it wasn't exactly a difficult call. You can count on passion-and therefore controversy and strong discussion in three areas: Religion, Politics and Sports. It's why I don't discuss these things at work.