I hope we're wrong about reincarnation
- Thread starter Boo boo
- Start date
brooke
New
Ah, the expert is back. Are you calling me a skeptic as in a pseudo-skeptic? I believe in psi...and it was a joke.
Super Sexy
New
s
Let me bold this to make it stick.
What are you talking about Craig? This is what you posted:
Where is your evidence for this extraordinary claim? You have none, yet it was you who made the claim.
You then twist this to make out I am pulling crap or misrepresenting you.
Lol. Just accept that you were wrong. I caught you out. You are making claims without backing them up with any evidence. It greatly annoys me because I experience it all the time from people and it is ignorant. But no harsh feelings. I do not want to further discuss this. I will not further engage on this thread as people do not actually want to discuss Stevenson's cases. They ignore the skeptical literature because the cases have been debunked and they are too scared to discuss it with me openly. I have asked many times but every time a proponent will not choose a specific Stevenson case. The place is just turning off topic into other things, so I am out. Thanks for the chat though.
Matt.
Can't fool me, Ian Gordon.
Craig Weiler
Associate
I hadn't seen this. To be honest, the paper doesn't say very much and the objections seem to be overly broad with a lot of pointless lecturing. The parapsychologists usually have detailed responses, but they seem to have ignored this one, save for the one comment by Julia Mossbridge. Apparently no one feels that it is worth the effort to rebut it.
Szechuan
New
Argument by weblink to pseudoskeptics isn't really throwing down the gauntlet. It's more like stomping and exclaiming in a pre-pubescent squeak, "I said you are, I know you are, but what am I?".
Craig Weiler
Associate
s
Let me bold this to make it stick.
What are you talking about Craig? This is what you posted:
Where is your evidence for this extraordinary claim? You have none, yet it was you who made the claim.
You then twist this to make out I am pulling crap or misrepresenting you.
Lol. Just accept that you were wrong. I caught you out. You are making claims without backing them up with any evidence. It greatly annoys me because I experience it all the time from people and it is ignorant. But no harsh feelings. I do not want to further discuss this. I will not further engage on this thread as people do not actually want to discuss Stevenson's cases. They ignore the skeptical literature because the cases have been debunked and they are too scared to discuss it with me openly. I have asked many times but every time a proponent will not choose a specific Stevenson case. The place is just turning off topic into other things, so I am out. Thanks for the chat though.
Matt.
It all becomes very clear to me . . .
How do you know CoD is a pseudoskeptic. Do you know him? He says, he's read the literature, but he's come to a different conclusion than you, I presume you have also read the literature and does that make you a pseudobeliever?
It's childish to start with derogatory remarks. It's adult to engage and show him where and why you think he's wrong.
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
I know very little about reincarnation research, but I could ask Jim Tucker what the best cases are. No guarantee he'd reply to me.
It does seem like there should be some centralized location to see a rebuttal by Tucker (or Stevenson) regarding the cases.
It does seem like there should be some centralized location to see a rebuttal by Tucker (or Stevenson) regarding the cases.
MysticG
New
So far, every post you have made on this forum has been a waste of space - do you want to retract them?
The reason I don't quote skeptics in my discussions is not because I don't know about them. Here's a hint: It's the same reason you don't quote Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
Your indoctrination and ability to quote skeptics may win you points at JREF, but not here. It's just like a Christian bragging about how many bible verses he can quote.
It is very well known in psychology that humans, not just paranormal believers, tend to ignore evidence against their beliefs. Do you think yourself different? The stronger your beliefs, the more you will ignore contrary evidence. That is why your strong belief in the status quo skepticism makes it a waste of time to discuss these matters with you.
Here's some advice from someone who used to think like you - think about why you believe what you believe, why you are so confident in it, and why you are posting here on this forum right now. Are you trying to convert people to your beliefs? Are you here to proselytize? No need to rush out a reply - you don't need to prove your intellect to us - just stop and spend some time thinking about this. The process of thinking deeply about why you believe what you believe will be much more valuable than reading and quoting skeptical literature.
(Enough of this diversion, I'm going back into forum retirement)
Craig Weiler
Associate
Arrogant insufferable tone? Check.
A desire to "win"? Check
Can't see his own flaws? Check
Interprets absolutely everything in favor of his own point of view? Check
He's a true believer.
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
Speaking of gauntlets, weren't you supposed to explain why Tallis' argument that memories can't be stored in the brain is wrong? That or present some credentials that can be measured against his own accomplishments in neuroscience & philosophy?
If you have an argument, I can send it to him and CC you on the email. He may not reply, but in my experience he's rather approachable.
Craig Weiler
Associate
I get mostly snark from you and you generally don't post long replies, so I haven't had much of a chance to form an opinion about you. I just kind of assumed that you were a skeptic.
F
fire
Once I was sitting by the side of a dying man – he was a professor in the same university where I was a professor. He was at the pinnacle of his successful career. And then came the heart attack – which always comes when you are at the pinnacle. Success is always followed by a heart attack. What else can you have after it? So he had a heart attack and he was dying. I went to see him. He was very sad – who wants to die? – and he was in great despair and anguish. I told him, ’You need not worry. You’re not going to die.’
He said, ’What are you saying? But the doctors... all the doctors say that there is no possibility of my survival. On what grounds are you saying that I am not going to die?’
I said, ’You cannot die in the first place, because you never lived. You have not fulfilled the first requirement for dying. For these fifty-five years you have been sleep-walking, you have dreamt; you have not lived. I have watched you for years.’ He was shocked, he was angry – so angry that for a moment he forgot all about death. His eyes were aflame with anger and he said, ’Is this the way to treat a dying man? Can’t you be a little courteous? Why are you so hard on me? I am dying and you are talking such great philosophy – ”You never lived.” Is this the time to say such things?’
I listened silently. I just became absolutely silent. Then the rage disappeared and he started crying, and great tears came to his eyes. He held my hand with great love, and then he said, ’Maybe you are right. I never lived. Maybe you are not rude, you are just being true. And I know nobody else would have said this to me.’ And then, great gratitude, and for a moment he became so conscious that one could have seen the light on the face – it was there, he was all aura. And he thanked me. That night he died. I remained with him to the last moment.
And he said, ’If you had not been here I would have missed my death too, as I have missed my life. But I am dying consciously. At least one thing I am happy about – I am not dying unconsciously. ’
And his death was beautiful. He died without any regret, he died in a relaxed way. He died almost with a welcoming heart, he died full of gratitude. He died prayerfully. His next life is bound to have a different quality. If death is so beautiful it brings a new life to you.
But one has to live each moment, whether it is of life, of love, of anger, of death. Whatsoever it is one has to live each moment as consciously as possible. -- OSHO
He said, ’What are you saying? But the doctors... all the doctors say that there is no possibility of my survival. On what grounds are you saying that I am not going to die?’
I said, ’You cannot die in the first place, because you never lived. You have not fulfilled the first requirement for dying. For these fifty-five years you have been sleep-walking, you have dreamt; you have not lived. I have watched you for years.’ He was shocked, he was angry – so angry that for a moment he forgot all about death. His eyes were aflame with anger and he said, ’Is this the way to treat a dying man? Can’t you be a little courteous? Why are you so hard on me? I am dying and you are talking such great philosophy – ”You never lived.” Is this the time to say such things?’
I listened silently. I just became absolutely silent. Then the rage disappeared and he started crying, and great tears came to his eyes. He held my hand with great love, and then he said, ’Maybe you are right. I never lived. Maybe you are not rude, you are just being true. And I know nobody else would have said this to me.’ And then, great gratitude, and for a moment he became so conscious that one could have seen the light on the face – it was there, he was all aura. And he thanked me. That night he died. I remained with him to the last moment.
And he said, ’If you had not been here I would have missed my death too, as I have missed my life. But I am dying consciously. At least one thing I am happy about – I am not dying unconsciously. ’
And his death was beautiful. He died without any regret, he died in a relaxed way. He died almost with a welcoming heart, he died full of gratitude. He died prayerfully. His next life is bound to have a different quality. If death is so beautiful it brings a new life to you.
But one has to live each moment, whether it is of life, of love, of anger, of death. Whatsoever it is one has to live each moment as consciously as possible. -- OSHO
conceptualinertia
Member
I have no idea whether or not reincarnation really happens but most of these objections are pretty poor.
"1) How does a soul exist between bodies?" This just seems to be a question about how non-physical things can exist altogether. The question is almost non-sensical if the only explanations one accepts are physical ones, and if one accepts non-physical explanations then there are myriad of possible answers.
"2) Tertullian's objection: If there is reincarnation, why are not babies born with the mental abilities of adults?" This is a fairly obvious question, along the lines of question 5: "If there is reincarnation, then why do so few, if any people, remember past lives?" I am pretty sure that people who believe in reincarnation have not failed to notice that most babies don't remember their past lives or have their past abilities. Rather they believe that when a soul is reincarnated its past memories are repressed. Those that do remember past lives are those that have managed to overcome the repression just like people who repress memories can later recover them or be trained to circumvent the repression.
"3) Reincarnation claims an infinite series of prior incarnations. Evolution teaches that there was a time when humans did not yet exist. So reincarnation is inconsistent with modern science." This is silly because it is based on a false premise that "Reincarnation" (as it was an entity!?) claims to be infinite. I have never seen such a claim made by reincarnation believers. Second, even if reincarnations did claim to be an infinite series, there are certainly scientific theories that postulate the existence of multiple universes in a series or parallel to each other that can stretch back infinitely. There is no reason to believe that those other universes do not have sentient life.
"4) If there is reincarnation, then what is happening when the population increases?" See above, just because reincarnation exists doesn't mean that everyone born is reincarnated. If you do not believe in an infinite series, then everyone has to have a first time in this world. If you do believe in an infinite series, the populations of the inenumerable other universes will suffice to supply souls to our universe.
5) See above
6) "They assume that when a human dies, before he is reincarnated, he exists as an astral body invisible, completely undetectable by scientific instruments, yet somehow able to travel at a very high speed and penetrate material objects like walls, roofs, and human bodies. He can travel and see things even though deprived of a brain and eyes and means of locomotion."
This seems to just be a rehash of the earlier objection that cannot fathom the existence of non-physical things. Non-physical things, not bound by physical laws, would not have the limitations that your imagining souls to have.
7) "After a period of time, one's astral body picks out or is thrown into a woman's body at the moment of conception. Even though the person may have been very old and knowledgeable at death, when reborn he has a new, different baby's body and none of his memories. Yet he is somehow the same person."
This too is a rehash of previous objections that essentially amount to "reincarnation cannot be true because I find the concept weird."
8) "To account for the great increase in population, it must be assumed that many souls incarnated on this earth did not live on it previously. They must somehow have migrated from some other planets or dimensions or god knows what. Finally, most people must have done bad in past lives because they will enter the wombs of mothers in poor, over-populated countries where their lives are likely to be miserable."
At least this acknowledges that the "infinite reincarnation" question is not really much of a question. This also appears to assume that reincarnation is a means of reward and punishment. But even if reincarnation were a means of reward and punishment, I think it is very likely true that most people would have done at least some bad things in past lives that would warrant some sort of "atonement" in their next life, maybe in the form of growing up in poverty.
Frankly the content of these questions, unless they were made in jest, reflects very poorly on their author.
Boo boo
New
"They ignore the skeptical literature because the cases have been debunked and they are too scared to discuss it with me openly. I have asked many times but every time a proponent will not choose a specific Stevenson case."
Here we go with the "You're just scared" line again. *facepalm*
Here we go with the "You're just scared" line again. *facepalm*
Boo boo
New
I doubt that's Ian Gordon. But I think that's 'Atheistic Materialism is a Fact' from Michael Prescott's blog. He thinks whenever someone doesn't want to respond to something such as 'Stevenson case', that person is scared.
Last edited:
CallofDuty
New
This is a typical fallacy from paranormal believers, just to chuck insults around and call any skeptic a "pseudoskeptic" without really reading their material. You complain when you are called a woo-believer but you cannot have it the other way. The insults should be left out of any debate. But I have already demonstrated why you are wrong on this. Ian Wilson (a believer in the afterlife so not a total-skeptic) who investigated over twenty of Stevenson's cases actually interviewed witnesses and discovered many of them to be fabricated or the result of fraud. I have two of his books in front of me right now - I can quote examples. I don't see what makes him a "pseudoskeptic". And Sarah Thomason, a linguist at the University of Michigan debunked three of Stevenson's cases in a very detailed paper (already listed).
If these skeptics are "pseudoskeptics" to you, then who in your opinion qualifies as a skeptic? Do you know the definition of skepticism? Name me a "skeptic" then. Don't lie you have never read a skeptical book. I read your posts and you are not familiar with it.
My friend has written on skepticism, I suggest you read his paper so you really understand it:
http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/Why-Is-There-a-Skeptical-Movement.pdf
This has been ignored from members of this forum. But it is important. Let me know what you think? If you choose to read it.
I am interested in the scientific method because it is the closest thing we have to truth. Unlike yourself I do not have any beliefs in anything magical. I am a realist. I believe my wife is faithful to me, that is a belief. I am not denying I have beliefs.
But Scientific skepticism is not about belief that is what makes it so special. From all of the available scientific evidence - we know that psi has not been demonstrated and it is highly likely when we are dead we are dead. That's what the empirical evidence indicates - belief does not come into it. If you are inserting otherwise then you need to provide evidence for your claims. As all skeptics admit you could be right, that's why I investigate claims. Nobody is saying a claim can't be true before investigating it. I would like this stuff to be true, but every time I have found it not to be, but that is not always the law. The Giant squid was discovered to be real but for years people mocked the idea and said it wasn't.
But so far paranormal believers have not done this. They have not demonstrated their claims with any evidence. The burden of proof is on the paranormal claimant, not on the skeptic to disprove anything. It is you who is making the extraordinary claim that magic exists, so you must demonstrate it with evidence. As explained on the other thread 150 years and we don't have a single person out of over 7 billion who can move a pencil an inch by psi so it doesn't look good but I am not here to debate this, I was just interested in Ian Stevenson's cases because I have research them. If you have the evidence I would be on board. And no I am not interested in trying to convert you, it is clear you will believe in all kinds of magic and silly stuff from your other postings. I have seen some horrific things, suffered from a lot of pain, suffered from depression for years - if an afterlife was true I would be on board straight away but all available scientific evidence points the other way. I will post on the other threads as nobody has taken me up on the Ian Stevenson case offer.
Boo Boo if we Google "boo boo" sockpuppet troll, various websites claim you are a sockpuppet and a troll. In fact several other users on this forum suspect your account is a parody especially as you just turn up to threads to keep laughing and bring nothing to the table. But you don't see me keep raising this issue about you, do you? So why do it to me, especially when you have no evidence? If you want to know who I am then yes I did post on Michael Prescott's blog under my real name Matt. Prescott let me post on his blog and we had a decent debate. The debate was here and it lasted 2 pages http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2014/02/a-mess.html and yes I do think some people are too scared to debate me on these issues. I am very well read in the literature and can shoot down their claims very easily, even Prescott respected my evidence. That's why nobody will choose a specific case study. But I am not waiting on this thread anymore, you had your chances. Shame. :)
Super Sexy
New