Basava Premanand is Dying, Still Atheist

[General Zod]

The difference is that with religious true believers, there is contradictory evidence to the proposition, while with Premanand, there is no evidence one way or another. Supposing that Premanand is facing death with no internal emotional reaction at all based solely on the note he wrote is like supposing that Kuroneko lacks emotions based on his posts here.

Who said he was lacking emotions about it? There's a rather massive difference in degree from having no emotions to being incredibly tortured. I guess no middle ground exists?

[Surlethe]

Maybe in your world, "it could well be" means something other than "for all we know" or "it is possible that", but a normal English speaker of at least average intelligence would realize I'm not committing the black-and-white fallacy you caricatured into my argument.

[Rye]

It works better at convincing people to abandon their current life in favour of the next. Heaven/Hell allows an escape and future based on your current life, reincarnation has no escape and constant karmic debt (and it's easier to get fucked up in said systems due to the laws against "acting against one's cast").

I don't understand. How does reincarnation work better than heaven and hell and the apocalypse for convincing people to abandon their current life in favour of the next? That nihilism was outlined by Nietzsche in his criticism of Christianity, and it was praised of Handsjar by the Nazis.

[Guardsman Bass]

It works better at convincing people to abandon their current life in favour of the next. Heaven/Hell allows an escape and future based on your current life, reincarnation has no escape and constant karmic debt (and it's easier to get fucked up in said systems due to the laws against "acting against one's cast").

I don't understand. How does reincarnation work better than heaven and hell and the apocalypse for convincing people to abandon their current life in favour of the next? That nihilism was outlined by Nietzsche in his criticism of Christianity, and it was praised of Handsjar by the Nazis.

I think he got it off a bit - it encourages living within the structures (like a caste system) for two reasons:

1. It implies that since people have gone through countless lives before, your station in life is where you are divinely ordained to be as a consequence of past behavior - so don't try and change it.

2. It says that if you obey the rules, stay in your caste, etc, then the next time around things will be better - maybe you'll incarnate as something higher-stationed.

[General Zod]

Maybe in your world, "it could well be" means something other than "for all we know" or "it is possible that", but a normal English speaker of at least average intelligence would realize I'm not committing the black-and-white fallacy you caricatured into my argument.

It's "possible" that gravity could stop working tomorrow. But there's no reason to believe it will, just like there's no reason to believe that his emotional state is anything other than what he's claiming. So I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove by making that claim.

[Surlethe]

Maybe in your world, "it could well be" means something other than "for all we know" or "it is possible that", but a normal English speaker of at least average intelligence would realize I'm not committing the black-and-white fallacy you caricatured into my argument.

It's "possible" that gravity could stop working tomorrow. But there's no reason to believe it will, just like there's no reason to believe that his emotional state is anything other than what he's claiming. So I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove by making that claim.

Again, the key difference is that in the "analogy" you're making, there is solid evidence against one of the "possible" outcomes, whereas in this situation there is no evidence whatsoever to help distinguish any possible emotional turmoil. That is, unless you have new statements he's made regarding his emotional state that you'd like to share.

[Dooey Jo]

I think he got it off a bit - it encourages living within the structures (like a caste system) for two reasons:

1. It implies that since people have gone through countless lives before, your station in life is where you are divinely ordained to be as a consequence of past behavior - so don't try and change it.

2. It says that if you obey the rules, stay in your caste, etc, then the next time around things will be better - maybe you'll incarnate as something higher-stationed.

A social system that encourages people to be content with their lives and not revolt? Well, I for one can't think of such a thing outside of a certain reincarnation-featuring religion. Certainly not in medieval Europe, or Viking age Scandinavia, or ...

The problem with reincarnation is it can be used to justify social darwinism extrememly easily, similar to the way predestination can be used except worse.

Social Darwinism? Where do you people buy your opinions? Since when is "birth was influenced by previous life" a more powerful motivator for anything, than "it's the will of a supreme being who will bring us eternal bliss if we obey"?

[The Grim Squeaker]

I would think that death not being an escape would convince people to stay in their current life. And committing crimes such as suicide would result in the victim being reincarnated into worse circumstances.

No, since you can't avoid dying, it means that not only is their the indoctrination of "karma/sin" influencing your next life, there's also the (previously mentioned) justification of your current life being based on your previous life. So if your life is shitty it's your own fault ("Must work harder").
Your comment on suicide backs up my claim, it's not an argument against it

[tedisbest]

I would think that death not being an escape would convince people to stay in their current life. And committing crimes such as suicide would result in the victim being reincarnated into worse circumstances.

No, since you can't avoid dying, it means that not only is their the indoctrination of "karma/sin" influencing your next life, there's also the (previously mentioned) justification of your current life being based on your previous life. So if your life is shitty it's your own fault ("Must work harder").
Your comment on suicide backs up my claim, it's not an argument against it

So by "It works better at convincing people to abandon their current life in favour of the next" you mean abandon hope for more happiness in their current life, not abandon the life itself as I interpreted.

[The Grim Squeaker]

So by "It works better at convincing people to abandon their current life in favour of the next" you mean abandon hope for more happiness in their current life, not abandon the life itself as I interpreted.

Abandon hope for more happiness in their current life in favour of the next life/afterlife, yes.

[General Zod]

Again, the key difference is that in the "analogy" you're making, there is solid evidence against one of the "possible" outcomes, whereas in this situation there is no evidence whatsoever to help distinguish any possible emotional turmoil. That is, unless you have new statements he's made regarding his emotional state that you'd like to share.

I'm not the one trying to claim his mental state is any different from the OP so I'm not sure why you're trying to shift the burden of proof here.

[Johonebesus]

You know, if he is terrified and clinging to every last second of existence, that just makes his calm statement more impressive. That's what I meant by "dignity": not a lack of grief or fear, but keeping it together despite those feelings.

[Samuel]

Social Darwinism? Where do you people buy your opinions? Since when is "birth was influenced by previous life" a more powerful motivator for anything, than "it's the will of a supreme being who will bring us eternal bliss if we obey"?

You entirely missed my point. Birth is determined by a previous life is a more powerful motivator when it comes to how you deal with the people at the bottom of the social ladder. It is blame the victim in its purest form.

[Surlethe]

Again, the key difference is that in the "analogy" you're making, there is solid evidence against one of the "possible" outcomes, whereas in this situation there is no evidence whatsoever to help distinguish any possible emotional turmoil. That is, unless you have new statements he's made regarding his emotional state that you'd like to share.

I'm not the one trying to claim his mental state is any different from the OP so I'm not sure why you're trying to shift the burden of proof here.

What the fuck parallel universe are you living in? The OP doesn't say anything about his mental state, I'm not making any positive claims, there's no goddamn burden of proof to be shifted, and you're a blithering idiot.

[General Zod]

Again, the key difference is that in the "analogy" you're making, there is solid evidence against one of the "possible" outcomes, whereas in this situation there is no evidence whatsoever to help distinguish any possible emotional turmoil. That is, unless you have new statements he's made regarding his emotional state that you'd like to share.

I'm not the one trying to claim his mental state is any different from the OP so I'm not sure why you're trying to shift the burden of proof here.

What the fuck parallel universe are you living in? The OP doesn't say anything about his mental state, I'm not making any positive claims, there's no goddamn burden of proof to be shifted, and you're a blithering idiot.

The op says he's "sound of mind". I have a rather hard time picturing someone who's being eaten up inside over something as "sound of mind".

[Surlethe]

So you think that someone can't have strong emotions about something and at the same time be able to think clearly? Why are the two mutually exclusive?

[General Zod]

So you think that someone can't have strong emotions about something and at the same time be able to think clearly? Why are the two mutually exclusive?

People who are "incredibly tortured" over something don't tend to make the most rational decisions.

[Surlethe]

You're restating your claim, not giving a reason. Besides, even if you were correct, you're committing a sweeping generalization: what reason would you give to apply this rule of thumb to Premanand in particular?

[Akkleptos]

Maybe in your world, "it could well be" means something other than "for all we know" or "it is possible that", but a normal English speaker of at least average intelligence would realize I'm not committing the black-and-white fallacy you caricatured into my argument.

That's the way it goes when you go against maths...

There are three men on a train. One of them is an economist and one of them is a logician and one of them is a mathematician. And they have just crossed the border into Scotland and they see a brown cow standing in a field from the window of the train.

And the economist says, "Look, the cows in Scotland are brown."

And the logician says, "No. there are cows in Scotland of which one at least is brown."

And the mathematician says, "No. there is at least one cow in Scotland, of which one side appears to be brown."