Reincarnation is not confirmed. It is a theory, stop spreading misinformation.

update urself

update urself

Reincarnation is a belief system related to death, a lot like Christianity it cannot nor will it ever be able to be proven.

**** it, update me...shoot the link where it says reincarnation is confirmed...

TO:FearandLoathing
have u ever had an 'out of body experience'...I have...(and I was not hallucinatiing)
Check the book..life after life by Lobsang Rampa..
The art of dying and reentry has been mastered by some...u really should update urself before shooting ur mouth off

Does an Almond Joy come back as a Mounds Bar after it is eaten ... ? Auuuuuuuuuummmmmmm ...

update urself

Reincarnation is a belief system related to death, a lot like Christianity it cannot nor will it ever be able to be proven.

have u ever had an 'out of body experience'...I have...(and I was not hallucinatiing)

u really should update urself before shooting ur mouth off

Opinions are not facts.

2)Considering
-the theory that energy can neither be created nor destroyed..and
-that the soul is a form of energy ..and

Oh, I forgot the best part:



I have had some very smart new-agey type friends. We've had many conversations in which we've been loose with the word 'energy' - never confusing this metaphoric shorthand for the definitive way that physicists use the word. I thought the only crime we committed was one of deliberately lessened precision in speech...

...but this ridiculous confusion between different uses of this word just has to end. The juxtaposition of the two quoted phrases using the same word (energy) leads me to wonder if I've been wrong. As long as there are people out there who are stupid enough to confuse 'the soul as energy' with the laws of thermodynamics - maybe I ought to never have endorsed the idea that is okay to abuse these terms, as long as it is kept in proper context.

Yes, equivocation indeed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Fallacious reasoning

Equivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time. For example:

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

In this use of equivocation, the word "light" is first used as the opposite of "heavy", but then used as a synonym of "bright" (the fallacy usually becomes obvious as soon as one tries to translate this argument into another language). Because the "middle term" of this syllogism is not one term, but two separate ones masquerading as one (all feathers are indeed "not heavy", but is not true that all feathers are "bright"), this type of equivocation is actually an example of the fallacy of four terms.

Semantic shift

The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words that have a strong emotional content and many meanings. These meanings often coincide within proper context, but the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly changing the context as they go in such a way to achieve equivocation by treating distinct meanings of the word as equivalent.

In English language, one equivocation is with the word "man", which can mean both "member of species Homo sapiens" and "male member of species Homo sapiens". A well-known equivocation is

"Do women need to worry about man-eating sharks?"
where "man-eating" is taken as "devouring only male human beings".

Metaphor
A separate case of equivocation is metaphor:

All jackasses have long ears.
Carl is a jackass.
Therefore, Carl has long ears.

Here the equivocation is the metaphorical use of "jackass" to imply a stupid or obnoxious person instead of a male donkey.

Switch-Referencing

This occurs where the referent of a word or expression in a second sentence is different from that in the immediately preceding sentence; and, especially, where such a change in referent has not been clearly identified.

"Theory"

One typical form of applied equivocation is demonstrated in the following valid, but untrue syllogism, which revolves around the usage of the homograph "theory", when applied to evolution:
Evolution is a theory.
Theories are speculative.
Therefore evolution is speculative.

The source of this equivocation is what linguists term a switch-reference: where, the subject of the second statement is a different subject from that of the first -- as in the case of the homograph bank (which can just as easily designate a financial institution as a riparian zone).

The result is that, despite the application of two identical signs (i.e., the word "theory"), the actual referent of the word in the first statement, the actual object in the world which it designates, is an entirely different entity from the referent designated by the identical homograph in the second statement: