I don’t consider my opinions to be facts. But I am aware that all the facts do support opinions like mine (and a range of similar opinions). And I did cite two very good sources which go a long way to showing why I believe what I believe. The trouble with views which deny the naturalistic approach is that they are very narrow in their approach to sources of knowledge. Most actual science is ruled out because it undermines religious ideologies.
Moreover you present your opinions as facts also. You state for example that “Past life memories are very well documented” but this is simply not true. They are very poorly documented. And the people who document them offer nothing by way of explanation, though clearly they all lean towards etermalistic views. Hume’s criteria for miracles still apply.
Past-life memories are a supernatural phenomenon and one that absolutely entails a mind-body dualism since something immaterial survives the death of the body. There is no possible naturalistic explanation for this. Indeed naturalistic explanations rule out such phenomena and point towards other more plausible explanations.
What I notice about “style” is that Buddhists are very delicate when it comes to any argument which appears to contradict their articles of faith. Buddhists do not like to consider that they might be wrong about their worldview. So any kind of disagreement about articles of faith automatically seems “unnecessarily confrontational”. Any assumption that a different worldview might be better is seen as a threat and treated as such. And if I insist then the guns are trained on me personally. As here.
But of course where there are articles of faith confrontation is absolutely necessary.
Someone once said that,“The Enlightenment… was above all a movement which sought to emancipate [humans], regardless of political frontiers, from the triple tyranny of despotism, bigotry and superstition.”
To which I say, “bring it on”. I love being proved wrong. My worldview has radically shifted a few times in recent years and I find it exhilarating. But you aren’t going to prove 400 years of science wrong on the basis of some bad data and metaphysical speculation, you know?