Is it always this way on this forum? My first day here was yesterday, so I don't know. Is it par to attack and belittle and to accuse people of not meaning what they say?
It can be somewhat rough, but more along the lines of "That doesn't make sense, say it better before we answer" than "You're an idiot."
The method seen here is quite legitimate, but can be offputting, especially to those who aren't used to a discussion where terms
must be defined before being discussed. Those who are accustomed to debating this way sometimes forget how contrary to ordinary discourse the method appears to outsiders. Regulars also sometimes forget that not everyone has studied propositional logic.
All that said, if the goal is arriving at truth, dialectic in general is more useful than polemic or rhetoric.
For comparison's sake, consider how a math professor might respond when a student says, "Yeah, I get x must be 2 if x + 2 = 4, but what if '2' is made of thingummies, and x is a framjit, and '4' is really 7?"
A very polite professor might scratch his head and ask the student to explain. Most wouldn't bother -- which the student might consider rude or belittling. It's not so much that the question is meaningless that bothers the professor and the rest of the class, but that the student doesn't appear to know it.
In this particular case, you've been asking what evidence would convince a skeptic that reincarnation exists. The problem is that there isn't a well-known definition of 'reincarnation' precise enough to use for casual conversation, let alone logical analysis. So the polite posters here have asked you to specify exactly what you mean. Some have offered suggestions about reducing the problem, while others have assumed you meant various different things and answered as if you'd asked those questions instead.
The simplest answer is that reincarnation doesn't exist, so therefore there
cannot exist a proof that would satisfy anyone. From this starting point, you can whittle away at what you mean by reincarnation until you arrive at something that
might exist, and then examine what proofs would be necessary for that.
Several posters have leaped down the road in front of you and checked all the garden gates, concluding that unless you change paths, there simply isn't a door available. Others have pointed out the various bits you will need to examine in order to start whittling away at the beginning term.
If you want to be honest in your approach, you must first settle the question you want answered, then ask it as clearly and succintly as you can. The answers you get may or may not be helpful, but at least they'll stand a better chance of addressing your question.
If I were you, I'd start with something very simple: What objective evidence exists that any aspect of personal identity survives death? If the answer is 'none,' then you're done. If the answer is that something survives, you can then proceed to wondering about its nature, location, mode of travel, means of identification, meaning, and so forth. Until then, all the rest of the speculation and argumentation is meaningless.
