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 12-21-2011, 04:18 AM
 
39,031 posts, read 10,819,276 times
Reputation: 5082

Advertisements

Quite so, though we have to remember that Wiki submissions tend to be from advocates rather than from the unconvinced. Nevertheless, it is clear that the matter is still open to question and that means that - as yet - there is no rational or scientific requirement to accept the claims of reincarnation as substantiated to the levels required for scientific acceptance.

When or if they are then that will become a matter of knowledge not the supernatural. It will of course be a good example of what in fact we don't seem to have yet - some claim for the supernatural which has turned out to be validated. But so far it isn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2011, 01:43 AM
 
31 posts, read 27,159 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Quite so, though we have to remember that Wiki submissions tend to be from advocates rather than from the unconvinced. Nevertheless, it is clear that the matter is still open to question and that means that - as yet - there is no rational or scientific requirement to accept the claims of reincarnation as substantiated to the levels required for scientific acceptance.

When or if they are then that will become a matter of knowledge not the supernatural. It will of course be a good example of what in fact we don't seem to have yet - some claim for the supernatural which has turned out to be validated. But so far it isn't.
*Does a double take, thats a bold statment especially when there are thousands who could have submitted that yet you automatically assume that its from an advocate? hmmmmmm, case in point....as soon as we see data we dont agree with then automatically we try and discredit the source. i think even the "logical" Atheist would disagree with your post regarding wiki...they simply state the facts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 05:22 AM
 
39,031 posts, read 10,819,276 times
Reputation: 5082
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyesWideOpen219 View Post
*Does a double take, thats a bold statment especially when there are thousands who could have submitted that yet you automatically assume that its from an advocate? hmmmmmm, case in point....as soon as we see data we dont agree with then automatically we try and discredit the source. i think even the "logical" Atheist would disagree with your post regarding wiki...they simply state the facts
That is what I gathered from Wiki. But I may be wrong. In any case I was not saying that it was a biased and therefore selective source, but that it is a reasonable supposition that it might be posted by someone with an Interest. That is not a dismissal but a suggestion that one looks to see whether it has reported all the facts or only some of them.
When I checked, it seemed to have left out some of the objections and criticisms which I found on other sites and which you could have done too, if you'd looked, rather than having a crack at me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 08:41 AM
 
1,429 posts, read 2,109,269 times
Reputation: 1891
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyesWideOpen219 View Post
Not sure where you read i was claiming he has proved reincarnation.

The "prove" issue arose when you suggested the possibility of a skeptic returning with information to "disprove" his research. Maybe I read it wrong, but it read at the time as you giving credence to his research - to the point where someone could "disprove it." There's nothing to "disprove" because he has only speculation and "well - it only makes sense if you look at it through this way - ignore all that other stuff."


Quote:
Originally Posted by EyesWideOpen219 View Post

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.
And that's where you're wrong.

We don't roll over and accept whatever extraordinary claims people say - we use our ability to reason, we use our logic, we look at the evidence they propose - and if it holds water, only then do we seriously consider it.

I didn't read the interview thinking "This is BS."

I arrived at that conclusion by seeing his logic. For example, his suggestions that - childrens early interest in music etc point to reincarnation, childrens confused sexuality point to reincarnation, certain birthmarks point to reincarnation, - those are huuuggee leaps in logic that a number of other things (within this world) could explain. Him using it as proof of reincarnation sets off a big red button to me..

Quote:
Originally Posted by EyesWideOpen219 View Post
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 mean once he collects more "yeah it could be explained by natural phenomenon, but if you **** your head squint an eye and curl your lips it could also be reincarnation" ?

You mean once more of that "evidence" becomes available? Once he combs enough cases and zooms in on what supports his data, edits out what doesn't..?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EyesWideOpen219 View Post
you say that he has made up his mind its occuring and is just on a mission to find the data to support it?
Wasn't he the one who shared the story of when he went to India (I don't remember where exactly) and was asked what he was doing there - and he replied he was searching for evidence of reincarnation..?

So yeah, I guess we could say he literally was on a mission to find data that supports his claim.






Quote:
Originally Posted by EyesWideOpen219 View Post
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
What doubt am I placing on him?

I've read his interview, and I'm just restating what he said. I admit I'm using my ability to reason and for logic - and if that's interpreted as "placing doubt on the researcher" then - that's not a good sign..

Does looking back in history and saying "this child had no way to know about music - yet he was a child prodigy - how else could it be explained except for reincarnation!?"

Or -

"little Sam always felt different, even as a child - until he grew up and became Susie"

Or -

"Little Mitch had a birthmark on his left arm in the shape of a bullet, and he showed an unnatural fear of guns for a child - more proof of reincarnation!"

That seems to be his reasoning...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2011, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,883 posts, read 14,224,806 times
Reputation: 16076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt View Post
A fundamental principle of science is reproducibility...
And also universality.

If I mix and acid and a base, I get water and a salt. It doesn't matter if I'm here, in Nairobi, Kenya, at the South Pole, on the Moon, on Mars, in another solar system or in another galaxy, it is always true.

That is what universal means, and in that respect, reincarnation fails.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2011, 01:20 AM
 
Location: Metromess
11,798 posts, read 21,972,242 times
Reputation: 5074
I'm a big fan of Wikipedia, but it isn't always correct about everything. It reflects the misunderstandings of its contributors. But it is (usually) self-corrcting when someone sees an error and corrects it, like science but not like religion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2011, 03:57 AM
 
39,031 posts, read 10,819,276 times
Reputation: 5082
Quote:
Originally Posted by catman View Post
I'm a big fan of Wikipedia, but it isn't always correct about everything. It reflects the misunderstandings of its contributors. But it is (usually) self-corrcting when someone sees an error and corrects it, like science but not like religion.
Quite. In my previous job it was a near legal - ruling that a reference to Wiki was not to be taken as reliable. That doesn't mean it's nonsense. It is very informative and useful but the contributions, while they do try to review them, are often posted by people who have an interest, not to say an agenda. It is always worth taking a look at other sites - even Fundypedia - to see what you are not being told.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2011, 10:02 PM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,143 posts, read 19,189,484 times
Reputation: 14007
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.


How do you come to this conclusion that supernatural occurrences simply do not exist? Is it just a stance you take….An opinion? Or have you researched the subject thoroughly? The reason I ask is from what I have read there is ample circumstantial evidence out there that shows there is more going on and no matter where I look I cannot find explanations from sceptics or atheist regarding a few of the topics (see below)


1. Reincarnation
Scientific Proof of Reincarnation: Dr. Ian Stevenson


2. OBE’S
Ok from what I understand here is that most nonbelievers explain this as a hallucination, a dying brain last breath, and they have backed it up by recreating the experience with pilots BUT at the very most all they achieve is “being out of body” seeing oneself from the roof or floating and the tunnel yet there have been reports of people having those experience’s and so much more for instance seeing dead loved ones, going to another place, feeling love and no judgment and finally giving information on things that were going on in the world while they were dead either in the room they were in or somewhere else.


I’m not religious so this is not an attack I’m simply interested in how a person who has zero belief in the supernatural explains these things to themselves, do you simply deny it because science cannot prove or disprove it? Are you of the opinion “there must be a logical reason for it all we just haven’t found it yet?” or maybe i have overlooked or missed some sort of explination regarding the above topics ? (if so please send me a link etc.



I’ll say it again though this very seldom works, Please no attacking we have enough of that going on in these threads, if you have an answer to the question post it…..simple J
The way I see it, everyone has a "box" in which they put all the things which make up our individual world views. Nobody has a totally objective observation of reality; everything we know is just a model made by our brain from years of collected bits information and sensory input.

We can't just put everything in our mental boxes or we wouldn't be able to function at all, so we naturally screen new bits of info before we include it in our world-view. Some screen their boxes with bibles, some with textbooks and some with beer, some boxes are full of holes and others are sealed shut...but in the end, none of us are fit to truly declare what IS and ISN'T reality with 100% accuracy. Some screens are better than others, but ALL of them let some things in that shouldn't be in our "reality boxes" and keep things out that should be included. That's why we must continually seek to learn and understand more.

It's kinda humbling to think about, really. We really don't know everything; there's a good chance we know almost nothing at all about the nature of reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2011, 05:16 AM
 
39,031 posts, read 10,819,276 times
Reputation: 5082
Quite true, and atheists and scientists know this as well as any so the acusations of claiming to know it all and have all the answers are simply wrong and a misrepresentation.

On the other hand, the things we do have information about are very often reliable. We have perhaps two kinds of reliable information - empirical reliability. We know the sun will always rise, that our car will always start and people will always die. We may not know much about the mechanism but we know from experience.

Then there is scientific reliability. We can find out, not only what is factually so, but often why it is and how it works. That is why science is so valuable - the most reliable source of information that we have and those who deny it are simply being perverse and irrational.

Those who pronounce on the unknown are more or less interesting as theorists and, if they do it with some background knowledge and using logic, they can come up with useful hypotheses. But investing guesswork and speculation about the unknowns with the quality of reliability are - again - being perverse and irrational.

Dismissal of any other explanations is perverse and irrational and, where there is some supportive basis for the other explanations of the empirical and scientific data kind, to dismiss them in favour of unsubstantiated beliefs is getting beyond perverse and irrational and, when they become deprecating and aggressive and then demand 'respect' for their irrationalities...well, I sometimes think we all deserve a medal for extreme patience.
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