hackenslash wrote:

MarkHei wrote:The answers I am referring to is that we are part of a bigger realm beyond the material world.

And of course you can present evidence for this, can't you?

This cannot be measured by science so the skeptics refuse to believe it.

Which is right and proper. It's called thinking critically. This involves not accepting that which is merely asserted to exist.

But there are limits to your worldly understanding

Oh really? Care to tell us all what they are?

and if you aren't able to take risk with a leap of faith

Risk? What risk? Anyhoo, you talk as if faith is a good thing. It isn't.

when the evidence is upon you and you're just sitting there looking at it not knowing what to do,

What evidence? More importantly, this contradicts the preceding sentence. Why would I need faith when there is evidence? Why do you?

perhaps making fun of it or attacking the argument's punctuation rather than the point being made,

There was a point?

then you are living in your own illusions.

Well, that's entirely possible, though I'd venture to suggest that if I'm living in an illusion, then a) it's a compelling one and b) it's an illusion that is commonly shared.

The truth that is out there is Buddhism and the faith part of Buddhism says that our lives are driven by karma and our lives are endless.

Buddhism is truth? Again, though, you keep levelling your idiotic accusations at atheists. Are you not an atheist, or are you just not initiated into Buddhism sufficiently to be aware that it is itself atheist (there are a couple of Buddhist schools that have deities, but I'm pretty sure you aren't into any of those, for various reasons)?

This opens up new avenues of research for those who are not timid.

Excellent! I love research. Tell us what to look at and we'll see if we can get a grant.

I would be happy to. Why don't you look at some of the past and existing cases of children who report past lives. Ian Stevenson's research was meticulously recorded you can view it yourself tell us what you think. He followed these children through life to see how closely they matched the life of the person they said they were in a past life. Many interesting nuggets there I can spoil them if you like:

1) Birthmarks that match the cause of death of the deceased person
2) Knowing the names of parents in past life and not accepting current parents
3) Detailed information of children who immediately try to contact past relatives as soon as they and speak or even hold a phone.

These are detailed in scientific reports. Are you unaware of their existence? Look up Ian Stevenson's work. If you want to discredit his character instead of his research, then we'll learn nothing. Look at his research.

MarkHei wrote:The problem I have with some of the skeptics remarks I find in this forum is that they take the point of view that I am wrong from the outset.

No, they take the view that your assertions stand unsupported.

This is so easy to do.

As is supporting your views, as long as they're actually supportable. Present some evidence and we'll look at it with an open mind.

Anyone can pollute an argument, that's not hard to do.

Says the man who started the 'atheists are blind' thread, which is loaded with well-poisoning assertions, all of them fuckwittery.

But if you want to see if there is any truth to a subject as important as Reincarnation,

On whose view is it important?

why don't you spend more time researching it?

Will do. Just point me at some critically robust evidence.

I want to hear the arguments against it.

I want to see the evidence for it. Arguments are less than convincing unless they're supported by evidence.

All I hear is that it's bologna without knowing the reasons.

Well, I haven't called it anything, I simply don't accept fuckwitted assertions without good reasons for doing so. The quickest route to my acceptance is rigorous evidence. Got any?

MarkHei wrote:Are you suggesting I don't understand the scientific method and how skeptics are SUPPOSED to function?

Actually, I'm suggesting that your problem is worse than this. Namely, that you don't understand the most elementary principles of discourse. A central principle thereof being "assertions do not equal fact".

MarkHei wrote:What you are doing is passing judgement without knowing the facts.

Wrong, I'm passing judgement because you haven't presented any facts, you've merely peddled an ever-growing list of assertions. Not that this is setting a precedent, of course, it's par for the course for supernaturalists across the planet, and has been for 5,000 years.

MarkHei wrote:Is that your skeptic oath?

The only principle I recall committing myself to here, was to uphold the basic rules of proper discourse, and I didn't take part in a ritual to do this.

MarkHei wrote:We judge because we're smarter than everyone else?

No, we judge whenever someone peddles assertions as fact. Do learn the difference.

MarkHei wrote:Where is your scientific method?

I thought that demanding evidence for assertions was eminently scientific. It's what scientists do all the time.

MarkHei wrote:Why are you not looking into this subject? isn't this what you're SUPPOSED to do? Investigate claims of paranormal behavior?

If I recall correctly, others have done the hard work for us beforehand. We're simply paying attention to the fruits of said labour.

MarkHei wrote:Are you worried about losing your wager?

I never placed one.

MarkHei wrote: Why is the subject of Reincarnation ignored by skeptics, or is it?

Please explain to me, how my asking you repeatedly to provide a detailed mechanism, by which the neural processes of a dead person can be transplanted intact to another person at some point in the future, constitutes "ignoring" this topic? I've asked this question several times, and thus far, you have been the one ignoring that question.

MarkHei wrote:I've only seen sparse discussions.

Still waiting for that question of mine to be answered ...

MarkHei wrote: Maybe there's a debate with Schermer, but I don't know who he was debating. Anyway, good luck in improving your skills at evaluation.

Pot, kettle, black much?

Still waiting for you to answer that question.

MarkHei wrote:I would be happy to. Why don't you look at some of the past and existing cases of children who report past lives.

OK, and how do we go about putting these anecdotes on a sound evidential footing? Anecdotes are not evidence.

Ian Stevenson's research was meticulously recorded you can view it yourself tell us what you think.

And consists of anecdotes.

He followed these children through life to see how closely they matched the life of the person they said they were in a past life.

Many interesting nuggets there I can spoil them if you like:

1) Birthmarks that match the cause of death of the deceased person
2) Knowing the names of parents in past life and not accepting current parents

This seems to be based on one case, one reliant on the anecdotes of a single individual, the niece of the allegedly reincarnated individual. The causes of birthmarks are well understood, and frankly, are risible in terms of evidential value. I can dismiss these on the basis of a cursory review of Stevenson's Wiki.

3) Detailed information of children who immediately try to contact past relatives as soon as they and speak or even hold a phone.

I can only find one instance of this on a cursory review, and that's a case in which the information was gained via normal means. Frankly not a strong case.

These are detailed in scientific reports. Are you unaware of their existence? Look up Ian Stevenson's work. If you want to discredit his character instead of his research, then we'll learn nothing. Look at his research.

Scientific reports? Published in peer-reviewed scientific journals? Most of what I can find is from the AMerican Journal of Psychical Research, hardly a paragon of good science, not least because there's no such thing as a psychic.

From what I can find immediately, and indeed just reading his Wiki, Stevenson was nothing more than a quack with a liberal dose of confirmation bias.

Sorry, but no.

Right, he was a quack and a drug user but he also did his research in the open and is very transparent. You're going after his character. Is that how we do skeptical research? Look at his books or watch youtube lectures with his pictures and boring personal notes to go with his stark evidence. 2500 cases and of those only 35 met the criteria of having the least amount of tampering. He openly goes over how he selects the most credible cases. It's amazing work, but he used LSD and had religious views. If we're going to attack his character then everyone is fair game.

MarkHei wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

MarkHei wrote:snip

I would be happy to. Why don't you look at some of the past and existing cases of children who report past lives. Ian Stevenson's research was meticulously recorded you can view it yourself tell us what you think. He followed these children through life to see how closely they matched the life of the person they said they were in a past life. Many interesting nuggets there I can spoil them if you like:

1) Birthmarks that match the cause of death of the deceased person

This smacks of a Texas sharpshooter fallacy, Mark; those children that report a past life with birthmarks that vaguely correlate with them are included, ones that don't are discounted. I have a friend with a small birthmark on the helix of her left ear. Tell me. What fatal injury caused her death in a past life?

2) Knowing the names of parents in past life and not accepting current parents

You mean upon encouragement by unscrupulous investigators into past lives, they were encouraged to believe their own story to the point of rejecting their own parents for people they thought were also their own parents?

3) Detailed information of children who immediately try to contact past relatives as soon as they and speak or even hold a phone.

I'm assuming these children must have also had the dexterity, numeracy and literacy to use a phone book? Why weren't these toddlers also cited as child prodigies that surpass even the most impressive of savants? Did their skills only apply to the use of a telephone?

These are detailed in scientific reports. Are you unaware of their existence? Look up Ian Stevenson's work. If you want to discredit his character instead of his research, then we'll learn nothing. Look at his research.

We went over this, Mark. It's been shown that there are grave doubts about Stevenson's methodology. His work is clearly a case of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias. Not unlike your own championing of his work.

Yes but you are not an authority. You are also a quack. You just poo-poo under a guise of authority. I want to see credentials. I want to ask you personal questions about your character. Who are you to tell us that you are the final authority? You're all Bozo's on the future bus.

MarkHei wrote:Right, he was a quack and a drug user but he also did his research in the open and is very transparent. You're going after his character.

Yes, because countering the claims is going after his character, isn't it? The comment about him being a quack was an addendum after dealing with the claims you presented.

Is that how we do skeptical research? Look at his books or watch youtube lectures with his pictures and boring personal notes to go with his stark evidence.

Why the holy fuck would I do that when you can't make a case here?

2500 cases and of those only 35 met the criteria of having the least amount of tampering.

And all apparently from communities in which reincarnation formed part of the local belief system. Confirmation bias is not evidence.

He openly goes over how he selects the most credible cases.

And none of them were remotely credible, as far as I can see. Feel free to convince me otherwise. I note that there's a good deal of criticism of his work, some of it detailed in his Wiki.

It's amazing work, but he used LSD and had religious views.

I've used a huge amount of LSD. What the fuck has that got to do with the credibility of his cases?

If we're going to attack his character then everyone is fair game.

I didn't simply attack his character, I dealt with the specific claims you presented. Perhaps they were simply weak cases, in which case you should provide something stronger.

It looks a lot like you read a book and simply accepted its claims at face value. We've all done it. Learning to think critically is not easy, and it's massively under-taught in schools the world over. You really have to work at it, especially in removing your own confirmation bias, which is a powerful filter against evidence that runs counter to your views. Assuming you're not a sock-puppet, stick around for a while and you might learn a few things about how it's done.

MarkHei wrote:Right, he was a quack and a drug user but he also did his research in the open and is very transparent. You're going after his character. Is that how we do skeptical research? Look at his books or watch youtube lectures with his pictures and boring personal notes to go with his stark evidence. 2500 cases and of those only 35 met the criteria of having the least amount of tampering. He openly goes over how he selects the most credible cases. It's amazing work, but he used LSD and had religious views. If we're going to attack his character then everyone is fair game.

You're missrepresenting what Hack and others have written. We have been and are addressing his methodology and the veracity of his studies. Picking the most credible cases to fit your hypothesis is exactly what one does when they are working with a confirmatory bias. Allow me to pick out the cases I want and I can demonstrate that eating ice cream causes Islamic fundamentalism. A brief overview of his studies have shown that they are anything but stark; Drawing any possible correlation with his hypothesis that he could from birthmarks (where available) to badly interpreted language, to the vaguest of unexamined coincidences. This was not science, Mark; This was motivated reasoning writ large.

MarkHei wrote:Yes but you are not an authority.

I don't need to be. I'm a scientifically literate individual who understands in quite exquisite detail how science is properly conducted, and how to be critical of one's own position. This latter is a skill you'd do well to cultivate. Entrenchment is a dangerous thing in science.

You are also a quack.

Nice. Let us know how that works out for you.

You just poo-poo under a guise of authority.

Poo-poo? I detailed precisely why I find the claims unconvincing. How is that poo-pooing? As for this guise of authority, that's entirely your own perception, as I have never asserted any authority.

I want to see credentials.

Credentials in what? My credentials are my posting history, which you can review at your leisure. I've written fairly extensively on science and the philosophy of science here and elsewhere. The forum search facility is your friend.

I want to ask you personal questions about your character.

Good luck with that. If you want some indication of my character, again, my posting history is a matter of record, which you can review at your leisure.

Who are you to tell us that you are the final authority?

Where did I say that? The evidence is the final authority, and you have little, and what you do have is weak and doesn't stand up to even rudimentary critical scrutiny. Again, feel free to convince me otherwise. Anecdotes won't cut it.

You're all Bozo's on the future bus.

Nice. Let us know how that works out for you.

One of you mentioned a bunch of Atheists in a listing. I wanted to show this is what Noam Chomsky says about Reincarnation. Lets see if you can take this seriously.

"In the first lecture I ever heard him give, in 1965, he asserted that psychology had in no way improved on Plato's theory that learning is remembering past lives. Hilary Putnam interrupted from the back of the room: "Wait a minute. You're not seriously suggesting that reincarnation is a plausible explanation?" Chomsky held his ground: "Why not? It certainly makes more sense than associative learning does."

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 02134.html

Lovely argumentum ad verecundiam you have there. Got anything that isn't riddled with logical fallacies?

hackenslash wrote:Lovely argumentum ad verecundiam you have there. Got anything that isn't riddled with logical fallacies?

I'd just like to know if you disagree with Noam Chomsky. If you think you are smarter than him.

Noam Chomsky then or now?

I don't claim to be smarter than him, but what does that have to do with whether or not I agree? You understand what an argumentum ad verecundiam is, don't you? You understand why it's a logical fallacy? Apparently not, because you've just compounded it.

Yes, I disagree, assuming that Chomsky actually believes in reincarnation, something that is not remotely clear from that little quotation. I'd have to see the full text of the lecture for context.

ETA: I disagree with any physicist or cosmologist who insists that time began at the big bang, because there's no good reason to suppose it did. The data support no conclusions. Does my disagreement suggest that I think I'm smarter? Or maybe my disagreement simply resides in the lack of evidence for such a proposition, in much the same way that there is no evidence for reincarnation.

I don't know what that particular latin argument translates too but i could google it. I took philosophy of logic so I will indulge.

Argument against authority. You gave the list. You asked me what I felt about these guys. I pointed out Noam Chomsky believes Reincarnation is a possibility. It's a more reasonable explanation than any other science has to offer. If this means nothing for my argument I want to know when you're willing to budge.

Except that it isn't a more reasonable view, regardless of Chomsky's view on the matter. That's why it means nothing for your argument, because it's a fallacious appeal to authority.

I'm willing to budge when you can present critically robust supporting evidence, rather than anecdotes and irrelevant appeals.

Argument FROM authority. Chomsky is a linguist and knows as much about the afterlife as anyone else: ie zero.

Who give two shits what Numb Chompers thinks? He's a linguist, and a pretty good one at that, but his opinions on anything other than his area of expertise are just as full of shit as every other opinion. I'd trot out the old saw about everyone having an opinion and an asshole, but there are some people without assholes.