|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jul 31, 2017 22:04:51 GMT
one more shining example of: if you smoke enough pot everything is believable! LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 31, 2017 22:21:01 GMT
I suppose it's significant that so few people in any culture remember past lives. It suggests that specific memories probably do not transfer from the dying body to another.
At the same time I would not say that it "has never been proven." The assumption that because something doesn't happen very often then it has "never" happened is a very serious flaw in logic. Of course we on this board know well that the people who make such assumptions have had their science card cancelled, at least here. In the wide world things might be different.
People who make and stand by that assumption here might believe they "represent" the wider world and they probably do. Or they might be seriously mentally retarded, but I suspect the truth is they just haven't bothered to use their intellect. Perhaps they just enjoy saying things that annoy others and put others down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 2:02:35 GMT
I didn't vote, because I'd say that both option 2 and option 4 are my view. I love the fantasy of it and I'd like it to be true--I'd say that I'm open to the possibility of it being true, but I'd also say that it's bullshit that's pretty incoherent and for which there is zero evidence to support it. ^ this and there should just be a poll: Do you want the supernatural to exist? Not just do you think it does. About this poll, how is the self being defined? If it has zero memory of its former self then what use is it? The self would have to be changed by each life it has in some way for it to make sense. Edit: (a little more) If the self is just a continuing element (consciousness?) but whatever body it finds itself in does all the walking and talking then it has no use at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Aug 1, 2017 3:47:22 GMT
Me thinks you might have missed the point....  What was the point I missed...?  Could you (or somebody) explain to me more? Thanks. It was just a joke... "...died awhile ago..... but, somehow, is back again.".. Get it?  |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Aug 1, 2017 5:00:09 GMT
What was the point I missed...? Could you (or somebody) explain to me more? Thanks. It was just a joke... "...died awhile ago..... but, somehow, is back again.".. Get it? Oh!!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 1, 2017 5:23:24 GMT
one more shining example of: if you smoke enough pot everything is believable! LOL LOL, or alcohol - I do believe in "spirits"! |
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
 
|
Post by fatpaul on Aug 1, 2017 11:50:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 1, 2017 12:04:01 GMT
Loved that one. Have you seen the second and would you recommend if you have seen? |
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Aug 1, 2017 12:16:31 GMT
Loved that one. Have you seen the second and would you recommend if you have seen? I don't think I've seen it AJ. Didn't know it existed to be honest! |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 1, 2017 12:19:45 GMT
Loved that one. Have you seen the second and would you recommend if you have seen? I don't think I've seen it AJ. Didn't know it existed to be honest! No probs, Paul. Re-Animator 2 (1989) has a fairly decent rating of 6.2 on IMDB and some good user reviews in its favour as well. May be worth a watch on a boring day imo. I have it on my watch-list. |
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Aug 1, 2017 12:26:26 GMT
No probs, Paul. Re-Animator 2 (1989) has a fairly decent rating of 6.2 on IMDB and some good user reviews in its favour as well. May be worth a watch on a boring day imo. I have it on my watch-list. Oh yes, that will be getting a watch soon. In fact I'll watch both one after the other. It's been ages since I've seen the first one. Cheers for the tip! |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 1, 2017 13:05:34 GMT
It is what it is.
I've 'died' countless times, it's all part of the fun.
|
|
