U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-19-2011, 08:02 AM
 
31 posts, read 27,210 times
Reputation: 18

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt View Post
That is your opinion, but you must see that for all of these cases that he researched, he was the only "scientist" researching and reporting on them. Someone else, preferably a skeptic, needs to go in and verify all of his original research. Without that, for all we know, he could have been pulling a fast one over on all of us to make himself famous.
I understand where your going with this i just think that at some point we have to trust in something (being the process) or someone and i do not mean that in a religious way AT ALL

both you and theearthbeneathme have suggested this researcher "may" have an agenda yet there is no proof of that, the problem here is that there are people who are determined to prove they are right rather than find out the truth so when there hit with data they cant explain its easy to turn the doubt on the researcher, for example you suggested sending in a skeptic to do a follow up, lets say he / she returns with findings that disprove Ian's research...couldnt someone else turn around and say but wait this person is a skeptic he'she is bias and only looking for one possible answer.

your points in your previous post are very valid and i can see how a person could end up thinking its reincarnation when there is a good chance its not however im not sure how the case studies were carried out iv only read a little on ian's research but plan on getting the books to get the details there
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2011, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,609 posts, read 4,119,144 times
Reputation: 1399
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyesWideOpen219 View Post
How do you come to this conclusion that supernatural occurrences simply do not exist?
Because in my 66 years I have never experienced anything that even remotely appeared supernatural.

Oh sure, there are many things I do not understand. Gravity mystifies me and I don't understand how electromagnetic forces work.

However, that does not mean there has to be a supernatural force that makes bodies with something called 'mass' attracted to each other.

I just accept these things and go on with my very pleasant life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 09:42 AM
 
1,429 posts, read 2,112,736 times
Reputation: 1891
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyesWideOpen219 View Post
I understand where your going with this i just think that at some point we have to trust in something (being the process) or someone and i do not mean that in a religious way AT ALL

both you and theearthbeneathme have suggested this researcher "may" have an agenda yet there is no proof of that, the problem here is that there are people who are determined to prove they are right rather than find out the truth so when there hit with data they cant explain its easy to turn the doubt on the researcher, for example you suggested sending in a skeptic to do a follow up, lets say he / she returns with findings that disprove Ian's research...couldnt someone else turn around and say but wait this person is a skeptic he'she is bias and only looking for one possible answer.

your points in your previous post are very valid and i can see how a person could end up thinking its reincarnation when there is a good chance its not however im not sure how the case studies were carried out iv only read a little on ian's research but plan on getting the books to get the details there
Wait - now you're claiming he's proven reincarnation?

Even by his own admission everything he's researched could be explained away - all he's claiming (again - his own words) is that his research opens the door to reincarnation - which is worlds different from proving it.

Also, when I say he's working from an agenda, do you know what that means?

It means he's already made up his mind it's occurring, he's just on a mission to find data that supports it.

That's not how science is done.

I could say "All fast cars are red," spend a day finding samples that support my premise, and write my paper only highlighting what data supports my premise.

That's analogous to what he appears to be doing. Well, actually it would be more like "my research doesn't show conclusively all fast cars are red, but it shows it's possible.."

And again - let's not put words in his mouth. He's not claiming proof of reincarnation - he clearly stated all of his examples could be explained away, but if you look at it from one particular angle - it might lead you to reincarnation.

Those TV shows usually are highly edited, put forth cherry picked examples (usually showcasing the anthill the hits, ignoring the mountains worth of misses), etc. Like those John Edwards psychic shows, where audience members came forward and expressed their shock at how different the tv version was from reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Vermont
10,317 posts, read 11,244,604 times
Reputation: 14204
In many discussions of unexplained phenomena one of the most useful questions is whether the proffered explanation is more likely than some other explanation for the same phenomenon.

For instance, in reading the interview, I find that Stevenson claims that it is common for children with physical deformities to report memories of past lives in which they suffered those deformities in some violent way (such as a child without fingers "remembering" having their fingers cut off).

In light of the fact that the great majority of the cases he refers to are in societies with a widely shared belief in reincarnation, is there a reason to conclude that his preferred explanation--that the deformity was caused by a violent act in a previous life, which the living person remembers--is more likely than an alternative explanation, such as that the deformity is caused by some prenatal or perinatal event or some mutation, and that the memory of a past-life trauma is simply a naive child's explanation for why they have that deformity?

Or does he go further, and conclude that somehow the violent attack in a previous life causes the mutation or prenatal trauma that results in the present life physical deformity?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Golden, CO
2,108 posts, read 2,501,335 times
Reputation: 1019
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyesWideOpen219 View Post
I understand where your going with this i just think that at some point we have to trust in something (being the process) or someone and i do not mean that in a religious way AT ALL

both you and theearthbeneathme have suggested this researcher "may" have an agenda yet there is no proof of that, the problem here is that there are people who are determined to prove they are right rather than find out the truth so when there hit with data they cant explain its easy to turn the doubt on the researcher, for example you suggested sending in a skeptic to do a follow up, lets say he / she returns with findings that disprove Ian's research...couldnt someone else turn around and say but wait this person is a skeptic he'she is bias and only looking for one possible answer.
A fundamental principle of science is reproducibility. From wiki:

Quote:
Reproducibility is the ability of an experiment or study to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method.
The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review).
The process of science involves taking a skeptical approach and then one by one trying to rule out alternative explanations. One big alternative explanation for the parallels discovered by one guy between the "remembered details" of one subject and details from the life history of another is experimenter bias, another is experimenter fabrication. We have to begin by ruling out those competing explanations.

The object of science is not to persuade someone who already believes, but to convince the skeptic by ruling through evidence all alternative explanations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 12:21 PM
 
39,242 posts, read 10,913,531 times
Reputation: 5100
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyesWideOpen219 View Post
I understand where your going with this i just think that at some point we have to trust in something (being the process) or someone and i do not mean that in a religious way AT ALL

both you and theearthbeneathme have suggested this researcher "may" have an agenda yet there is no proof of that, the problem here is that there are people who are determined to prove they are right rather than find out the truth so when there hit with data they cant explain its easy to turn the doubt on the researcher, for example you suggested sending in a skeptic to do a follow up, lets say he / she returns with findings that disprove Ian's research...couldnt someone else turn around and say but wait this person is a skeptic he'she is bias and only looking for one possible answer.

your points in your previous post are very valid and i can see how a person could end up thinking its reincarnation when there is a good chance its not however im not sure how the case studies were carried out iv only read a little on ian's research but plan on getting the books to get the details there
I take the point about 'may have an agenda'. I am wary of what may appear to be an attempt to dismiss evidence by quoting bias. I may say that I have seen (in a UFO case) a case constructed out of very questionable material by a researcher who was probably sincere sifting the evidence to combine the elements that fitted what she wanted to find and rather excluding the stuff that didn't. There are of course many other examples but that one was a good example of a doubtful result by evident unconscious bias.

This doesn't meant that the phenomenon indicating reincarnation is fakes or elicited by feeling the questions. there may be a real phenomenon, but what is causing it could be unknown factors.

In fact the appeal to what science doesn't know very often turn out to be selective because those suggesting a real supernatural cause are also claiming a particular cause and overlooking other possible explanations. It is just too easy to hold up the evidence especially if conducted with 'scientific rigor' by somebody with a certificate. I agree that someone checking up could also be accused of debunking. (I have seen some of that in the UFO world, too) and it really is a question of some real checking. After all if the evidence was spot on that would help. If it missed a bit and only the bits that fitted were referred to, that would be clear as well and accusations of bias would be quite beside the point.

The fact is that we really do need some proper research and I agree it is a bit frustrating that there isn't funding for such research. But we do have to be patient.

After all, is it really going to make a tremendous difference to our lives to know that reincarnation is real? One may say that it removes fear of death, but I don't fear it and I don't believe in it - yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 05:50 PM
 
1,114 posts, read 1,027,272 times
Reputation: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyesWideOpen219 View Post
I’ve always tried to look at the supernatural subject with an open mind reading up on both the views of the believers and non-believers. I myself would be considered agnostic I guess because I’m not 100% convinced either way though I am leaning towards "there is something more going on after we die" purely on "circumstantial evidence" I’ve read but there would be nothing that would convince me completely besides a personal experience.


My question is directed at the atheists of the world who don’t believe in anything supernatural.


ok....

Quote:
How do you come to this conclusion that supernatural occurrences simply do not exist?.......

I don't
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2011, 02:13 AM
 
31 posts, read 27,210 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEarthBeneathMe View Post
Wait - now you're claiming he's proven reincarnation?

Even by his own admission everything he's researched could be explained away - all he's claiming (again - his own words) is that his research opens the door to reincarnation - which is worlds different from proving it.

Also, when I say he's working from an agenda, do you know what that means?

It means he's already made up his mind it's occurring, he's just on a mission to find data that supports it.

That's not how science is done.

I could say "All fast cars are red," spend a day finding samples that support my premise, and write my paper only highlighting what data supports my premise.

That's analogous to what he appears to be doing. Well, actually it would be more like "my research doesn't show conclusively all fast cars are red, but it shows it's possible.."

And again - let's not put words in his mouth. He's not claiming proof of reincarnation - he clearly stated all of his examples could be explained away, but if you look at it from one particular angle - it might lead you to reincarnation.

Those TV shows usually are highly edited, put forth cherry picked examples (usually showcasing the anthill the hits, ignoring the mountains worth of misses), etc. Like those John Edwards psychic shows, where audience members came forward and expressed their shock at how different the tv version was from reality.
Not sure where you read i was claiming he has proved reincarnation.
all i stated was at some point we HAVE TO accept the findings and make a decision or we will never find the truth, so by trusting in the process (being the research) and the researcher, this guy is a scientist, what more can we ask for? if we are going to assume he might be in it for the money or some sort of get rich scheme then were going to assume the same thing for every other person who does take the time to do the research, not to mention he dedicated almost half his life to this research i myself doubt he would base it on a lie.

Yes he does claim that it may not be reincarnation and i do agree (like you) that it could be anything else BUT he goes on to say that the more the evidence begins to mount it is likely that it will point towards reincarnation

you say that he has made up his mind its occuring and is just on a mission to find the data to support it? to me that sounds like your saying he is bias towards reincarnation and implies he has an agenda to PROVE it is happening, that i dont agree with simply because there is zero proof, from my perspective he has simply stated the evidence as he found it...though i will say that i do not know for sure how the data was collect and that could have flaws....but when it come to the researcher i have no doubt that he followed data and not his own beliefs....who knows he could have been athiest.

placing doubt in the researcher especially when there is zero evidence is a slippery slope and ulimatley does not supply us with the answers where looking for...i have ordered his book and im interested to see how exactly he got his data

Last edited by EyesWideOpen219; 12-21-2011 at 03:12 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2011, 02:41 AM
 
31 posts, read 27,210 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEarthBeneathMe View Post
Also it seems very cultural oriented. Cultures that already accept it as fact, seem to be reporting more instances where it occurs...
My good friend wiki

#################################################

"Stevenson traveled extensively to conduct field research into reincarnation and investigated cases in Africa, Alaska, Europe, India and both North and South America, logging around 55,000 miles a year between 1966 and 1971. He reported that the children he studied usually started to speak of their supposed past lives between the ages of two and four, then ceased to do so by seven or eight, with frequent mentions of having died a violent death, and what seemed to be clear memories of the manner of death"

#################################################

I myself am from africa and reincarnation is not something taught here, i know for a fact that the "black" culture doesnt follow it and neither do most others also the kids he worked with were ages 2 to 4 most of the time could there really be cultural influences at such a young age?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2011, 02:45 AM
 
31 posts, read 27,210 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyesWideOpen219 View Post
Not sure where you read i was claiming he has proved reincarnation.
all i stated was at some point we HAVE TO accept the findings and make a decision or we will never find the truth, so by trusting in the process (being the research) and the researcher, this guy is a scientist, what more can we ask for? if we are going to assume he might be in it for the money or some sort of get rich scheme then were going to assume the same thing for every other person who does take the time to do the research, not to mention he dedicated almost half his life to this research i myself doubt he would base it on a lie.

Yes he does claim that it may not be reincarnation and i do agree (like you) that it could be anything else BUT he goes on to say that the more the evidence begins to mount it is likely that it will point towards reincarnation

you say that he has made up his mind its occuring and is just on a mission to find the data to support it? to me that sounds like your saying he is bias towards reincarnation and implies he has an agenda to PROVE it is happening, that i dont agree with simply because there is zero proof, from my perspective he has simply stated the evidence as he found it...though i will say that i do not know for sure how the data was collect and that could have flaws....but when it come to the researcher i have no doubt that he followed data and not his own beliefs....who knows he could have been athiest.

placing doubt in the researcher especially when there is zero evidence is a slippery slope and ulimatley does not supply is with the answers where looking for...i have ordered his book and im interested to see how exactly he got his data
here is a perfect example.

from wiki

Stevenson’s conclusions gained little support from within the scientific community, although Eugene Brody has suggested many of them simply dismiss ideas like reincarnation.[7] While Stevenson published his research in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and three scientific commentators have stated that Stevenson rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research,[7][8][9] mainstream scientists "tended to ignore or dismiss his decades in the field and his many publications".[4]
In 1977 the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease devoted most of one issue to Stevenson's work. In an editorial for that issue, psychiatrist Eugene Brody explained the decision to publish research that might normally be regarded as unscientific due to the "scientific and personal credibility of the authors, the legitimacy of their research methods, and the conformity of their reasoning to the usual canons of rational thought."[7] In the same issue psychiatrist Harold Lief wrote in a commentary: "Either [Stevenson] is making a colossal mistake, or he will be known ... as 'the Galileo of the 20th century'." More recently a review of Stevenson's European Cases of the Reincarnation Type described it as "an inspiring example of application of a painstaking protocol to sift facts from fantasy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top